HomeMy WebLinkAboutSUNRISE RIDGE FIRST FILING, MAJOR AMEND. & REPLAT - FDP - FDP120009 - DECISION - CORRESPONDENCE-HEARINGSunrise Ridize First Filing Replat, Maior Amendment FDP120009
August 20,2012, 5:00 p.m.
Sign In Sheet
Name (Please Print) Address E-mail
r, l-k.
vn
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
Sunrise Ridge First Filing Major Amendment and Replat. F.D.P. #120009,
Dated September 3, 2012, per authority granted by Sections 1.49 and 2.1 of the Land
Use Code.
Richard V. Lopez
Richard V. Lopez
Hearing Officer
2. This Major Amendment and Replat continue to comply with the land use
standards and development standards of the Urban Estate zone district
with four exceptions described below.
3. The Request for Modification of the Standard of Section 4.2(D)(1)(a) to
allow an increase in the overall density from 2.00 to 2.78 dwelling units
per acres has been found not to be detrimental to the public good, and
would 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 1.2.2.
4. The Request for Modification of Standard to Section 4.2(D)(1)(b) to allow
two lots to be less than the required minimum of one-half acre in area is
found not to be detrimental to the public good, and would 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 1.2.2.
5. The Request for Modification of Standard to Section 5.2(D)(2)(d) to allow
Lots 1, 2, 4, 5, 7 and 10 to have less than the required minimum side yard
width of 20 feet is found not to be detrimental to the public good, and
would 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 1.2.2.
6. The Request for Modification of Standard to Section 4.2(D)(2)(a) to
reduce the minimum lot width for Lot 7 from 100 to 75 feet is found not to
be detrimental to the public good, and would 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 1.2.2.
7. The replat complies with Section 3.3.1 of the Land Use Code.
DECISION
The Hearing Officer herein approves the four Requests for Modification of
10
b. Applicant's Justification.
The reduction in lot width is necessary to accommodate the proposed building
envelope. A 70-foot setback from Daylight Court is believed to be excessive and would
appear abnormal when viewed from the neighborhood as a whole. Because the
required minimum front setback is 30 feet, the proposed 50-foot front setback would not
appear out of character with the neighborhood.
C. Staff Analysis.
Staff explained that the 100-foot minimum of width would result in a building envelope
setback of an unusual length, uncharacteristic of a residential subdivision. Front yards
of such length are inefficient use of the land and clearly impact the feasibility of
providing an effective building layout. The dedication of the cul-de-sac as public right-
of-way was established by the original plat and the shape of the lot was created without
a specific end -use in mind. There is no established development pattern or character
that would be impacted by reducing the minimum lot width on Lot 7. The modified front
yard building setback will remain in excess of the minimum 30 feet.
d. Public Testimony.
Members of the public were primarily concerned about the uses and traffic. They did
not comment on this standard.
e. Hearing Officer.
The Hearing Officer finds that this modification can be supported as in compliance with
Section 2.8.2(H), the proposed reduction in the minimum required lot width for Lot 7 is
not detrimental to the public good and does 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 1.2.2.
5. Neighborhood Compatibility.
A neighborhood meting is not required for a Major Amendment and Replat subject to
administrative review. Several neighbors attended the public hearing to ask questions
of the applicant. The dialogue continued after the hearing ended.
CONCLUSIONS
The Hearing Officer has reviewed all of the evidence and testimonies submitted by the
applicant, citizens and staff and being fully advised, makes the following findings of fact
and conclusions:
1. Two-family dwellings as a land use are permitted in the Urban Estate
zone district subject to Administrative Review.
0
nominal and inconsequential.
C. Staff Analysis.
Staff found that the visual character of Sunrise Ridge First Filing will not be impacted by
these proposed side yard setbacks. If Sunrise Ridge were bordered by subdivisions at
lower residential densities, such as 3.00, 3.50, or 4.00 dwelling units per acre, then the
requested setback reduction would have a measurable effect. The adjoining
subdivisions are denser with a significantly different character such that Sunrise Ridge,
will continue to perform a level that is distinctive relative to the context of the general
area.
d. Public Testimony.
The public testimony did not focus on this standard.
e. Hearing Officer.
The Hearing Officer finds that the modification request is in compliance with Section
2.8.2(H), the proposed reductions inside yard setbacks for Lots 1, 2, 4, 5 ,7 and 10 are
not detrimental to the public good and do 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 1.2.2.
4. Section 4.2(D)(2)(a) - Modification of Urban Estate Required Minimum Lot
Width - Lot Seven.
a. Standard to be Modified.
The standard is "(a) Minimum lot width shall be one hundred (100) feet..." Lot width
shall be the horizontal (plan view) distance between the side lot lines as measured
along a straight line parallel to the front lot line or the lot lines along a line that is parallel
to the front lot line and located at the minimum front setback distance from the front lot
line. In the case of cul-de-sac lots, the minimum lot width may be measured between
the side lot lines along a line that is parallel to the front lot line and located at the actual
front building line.
"Width of lot shall mean the distance parallel to the front lot line, measured between
side lot lines through that part of the building or structure where the lot is narrowest."
Definitions, Article 5, page 46.
Based on the standard and the definitions, for pie -shaped cul-de-sac lots (Lot 7), the
minimum lot width is measured at a varying distance behind the sidewalk where the
minimum lot width is achieved. Under normal procedures, this is also closest point to
the front property line where a house may be placed. For Lot 7, this means that the
building envelope would have to be a minimum of 70 feet from the back of the sidewalk.
The applicant seeks to reduce the minimum lot width on Lot 7 from 100 feet to 75 feet.
This will result in shifting the building setback from 70 feet to 50 feet.
Village is 5.00 dwellings units per acre and Morningside Village is 7.00 dwelling units
per acre. Sunrise Ridge is proposed to be 2.76 dwelling units per acre. The reduction
in lot area for two lots (Lot One 1,441 square feet and Lot Five 2,085 square feet) is
minor when evaluated by the juxtaposition of all three subdivisions. The character
established by the large lots of Sunrise Ridge is not diminished by the small lots and
higher density of the two adjoining neighborhoods.
d. Public Testimony
There was some testimony about the character of the increase in dwellings that would
be built compared to the number previously approved.
e. Hearing Officer.
The Hearing Officer finds that the proposed decrease in lot area for Lots One (20,338
square feet) and Five (19,695 square feet) is not detrimental to the public good and
does 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 1.2.2.
3. Section 4.2(D)(2)(d) - Modification of Urban Estate Required Minimum
Side Yard Setbacks - Lots One, Two, Four, Five and Ten.
a. Standard to be Modified.
This standard calls for the minimum side yard with to be twenty (20) feet. The existing
approved plan is silent as to side yard setbacks relying instead on enforcement to be
applied at the time of building permit review on a lot -by -lot basis. In 2006, the applicant
did not have a building product envisioned but was anticipating a market for generic
estate lots. The applicant is requesting that Lots 1, 2, 4, 5, 7 and10 be allowed to
feature side yard setbacks that are less that the required minimum 20-foot side yard
setback.
b. Applicant's Justification.
The applicant states that all affected side yard setbacks are internal to the subdivision
and do not adjoin public right-of-ways. On Lots 4 and 7, the difference between
compliance and the requested modification only impacts a slight angle and small lot
area. On Lots 1, 2 and5, the difference runs the entire depth of each lot and the
setback requested is 10 feet instead of 20 feet.
The applicant states that given the size and scale of the entire subdivision and the size
of the lots relative to the surrounding area, these reductions in side yard setbacks will
not be visible to or impact the public. In those lots where the setbacks are at an angle,
the impact will be minuscule. For the other lots, there will remain at least 20 feet
between structures which is twice the distance for structures in either Observatory
Village or Morningside Village. The applicant contends that these modifications are
7
Morningside Village - HC, 298 dwelling units on 37 aces.
The two projects above contain a mix of housing types including single family detached,
single family attached and multifamily. Staff found that there is little, if any, rural -like
character within the surrounding area. This request of 2.76 dwelling units per acre is
significantly lower than the two adjoining projects and would retain a large -lot ambiance
that distinctive within the general vicinity.
d. Public Testimony.
Some members of the public were concerned about the added density.
e. Hearing Officer.
The Hearing Officer finds that the proposed increase in density from 2.00 to 2.76
dwelling units per gross acre is not detrimental to the public good and does not diverge
from the standards fo the Land Use Code, except in a nominal 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 Section1.2.2.
2. Section 4.2(D)(1)(b) - Modification of Urban Estate Required Minimum Lot
Size - Lots One and Five.
a. Standard to be Modified.
This standard requires that Lot sizes be one-half (1/2) acre or larger for dwellings that
are not clustered in accordance with the standards set forth in this Division.
The existing approved plan consists of 12 lots all of which are one-half acre or larger in
area. The applicant is requesting that Lots One (.47 acre) and Five (.45 acre) be
considered as legal lots within Sunrise Ridge First Filing.
b. Applicant's Justification.
The applicant states that at the time of the original plat approval (2006), there were
different economic, financial and market conditions. As initially conceived, each lot was
capable of accommodating potential single family detached dwelling (seven lots) or a
two-family dwelling (five lots) within the platted lot lines. Now the applicant believes that
two-family dwelling is the preferred housing model. The applicant has market -tested
two-family model with precise building dimensions that now require the replatting.
The applicant states that the proposed average lot size is 22,287 square feet or .51
acres. Therefore the neighborhood will appear to comply with the standard and is a
nominal and inconsequential provision.
C. Staff Analysis.
The lot sizes of the two adjoining neighborhoods, are much smaller than the lot sizes
proposed for Sunrise Ridge First Filing. The overall average density in Observatory
2
d. Hearing Officer.
The Hearing Officer finds that there are no additional requirements and the original
P.D.P. complied with this standard.
IJ4Eel 911JWIN 9101ZK
1. Section 4.2(D)(1)(a) - Modification of Urban Estate Maximum Allowable
Density.
a. Standard to be Modified.
The standard states that (a) "Overall average density shall not exceed two (2) dwelling
units per gross acre." The existing approved plan consists of 17 dwelling units on 8.7
acres for a density of 1.99 dwelling units per gross acre. The applicant is requesting 24
units on 8.7 acres for an increase to 2.76 dwelling units per gross acre. This is an
increase of seven dwelling units.
b. Applicant's Justification
The applicant contends that since th adoption of the Land Use Code in 1997, the
adoption of the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan in 1999 and the annexation of the
subject parcel in 2005, conditions have significantly changed in the general vicinity.
The applicant states that the subdivision to the west, Observatory Village, is now zoned
LMN, Low Density Mixed Use Neighborhood, with a minimum overall gross density of
5.00 dwelling units per acre. In addition, the subdivision to the north, Morningside
Village, is zoned HC, Harmony Corridor, with a minimum overall gross density of 7.00
dwelling units per acre. The area to the east does not have any development and is
characterized by the Fossil Creek Reservoir Inlet Ditch and Strauss Cabin Road, a
section line road classified as a two-lane arterial street. The subdivision to the south is
Sunrise Ridge Second Filing and is separated from the First Filing by Rock Creek Drive,
a collector street.
The applicant states that any Urban Estate character that once defined the general
vicinity has been significantly diminished over the past 15 years. In his November 11,
2011 letter, the owner states that there are no properties exhibiting the characteristics
of rural residential, rural small farm or rural ranchette within one -quarter mile fo the site.
The area is primarily suburban (LMN) and urban (HC), not rural.
C. Staff Analysis.
Staff noted that the size and scale of the two adjoining subdivisions speak to the
predominant urban character of the area. Both Observatory Village and Momingside
Village are still under construction and have not reached build out. Both projects are
zoned and vested for the following:
Observatory Village - LMN, 517 dwelling units on 113 acres.
5
Members from the public testified. A copy of the sign -in sheet is attached hereto.
FINDINGS
ARTICLE 3 - GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Section 3.3.1(13)(2) - Plat Standards - Street System and Natural Areas.
The request is to adjust three side lot lines at the following locations:
Between Lots One and Two
Between Lots Four and Five
Between Lots Five and Six
a. Street System and Natural Areas.
This standard requires that the general layout of lots, roads, driveways, utilities,
drainage facilities be designed to enhance an interconnected street system and
preserve natural areas.
b. Staff Analysis.
There are no changes to the public street system and -no impacts on rural areas as a
result of this replat.
C. Public Testimony.
The concerns expressed by the public were possible increases in traffic in the
neighborhood.
d. Hearing Officer.
The Hearing Office finds that since there are no changes to the public street system.
The Replat complies with the standard.
2. Section 3.1(C)(1) - Dedications.
a. Dedication Standard.
This standard requires that all necessary dedications for public streets, utilities and
drainage facilities be made as necessary to serve the area contained within the plat.
b. Staff Analysis.
Staff found that the request is to adjust three internal side lot lines. There are no
requirements to dedicate land for public streets, utilities or drainage facilities.
C. Public Testimony.
The public did not comment about this standard.
4
Sunrise Ridge Second Filing was approved on November 21, 2007 and consists of
seven lots on 5.04 acres, located on the south side of Rock Creek Drive. These lots,
with one exception, are owned by the same entity as Sunrise Ridge First Filing, and
remain vacant.
This Major Amendment and Replat represent a market -driven response to conditions
that have fundamentally shifted since 2005/2006. In 2005/2006, th objective was to
provide estate lots in a prototypical Urban Estate setting. Today, the objective is to
provide two-family dwellings within a context that has become more urban/suburban.
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING:
Evidence presented to the Hearing Officer established that the hearing was properly
posted, legal notices mailed and notice published.
PUBLIC HEARING:
The Hearing Officer opened the hearing at approximately 5:05 P.M. on May 20, 2012 in
conference room A, 281 North College Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado.
HEARING TESTIMONY, WRITTEN COMMENTS AND OTHER EVIDENCE:
The Hearing Officer accepted the following evidence from the hearing: (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 members of the public were present and testified.
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 Fort Collins:
Ted Shepard, Planning
From the applicant:
Dave Houts
Kelly Smith
From the public:
3
Subdivision (Morningside Village ) on the north. The Fossil Creek Reservoir Inlet Ditch
forms a portion of the east boundary. The zoning is U-E Urban Estate.
SUMMARY OF HEARING OFFICER DECISION: APPROVAL OF THE FOUR
REQUESTS FOR MODIFICATION OF STANDARD, THE MAJOR
AMENDMENT AND THE REPLAT.
BACKGROUND:
1. SURROUNDING ZONING AND LAND USES
Direction Zone Land Use
N HC Existing and Developing Multi -Family (Brookfield
Subdivision marketed as Morningside Townhomes)
S UE Urban Estate Sunrise Ridge Second Filing (vacant)
E FA-1 (County) Vacant Fossil Creek Reservoir Inlet Ditch
W LMN Existing Single Family Attached (Willowbrook
Subdivision - marketed as Observatory Village)
2. CONTEXT OF THE SURROUNDING AREA
The seven lots were once part of a large farm that were located on Strauss Cabin
Road. These lots were split off from the original farm approximately twenty-five years
ago prior to annexation. The lots range in size between approximately five and ten
acres. In Sunrise Ridge First Filing, the original house is located on Lot Six.
All seven lots were included in the boundary area of the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area
Plan jointly adopted by the City and Larimer County in 1999.
The property was annexed and zoned Urban Estate in June 2005. Sunrise Ridge First
Filing was approved on October 12, 2006 and consists of twelve lots. Five of these lots
were deemed eligible for two-family dwellings, (duplex) for a total of ten dwelling units.
The remaining seven lots were limited to single family detached dwellings allowing for a
total of seventeen dwelling units. So far only one two-family dwelling has been
constructed on Lot One. The original house is located on Lot Six. All other lots remain
vacant.
2
CITY OF FORT COLLINS
ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION
ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS DATE: August 20, 2012
PROJECT NAME: Sunrise Ridge
CASE NUMBER: F.D.P. 120009
APPLICANT: Mr. David Houts
Bogard Construction
300 East Horsetooth Road #103
Fort Collins, CO 80525
OWNER: Mr. Kelly Smith
5102 Daylight Court
Fort Collins, CO 80528
HEARING OFFICER: Richard V. Lopez
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
This is a request to replat and amend the Sunrise Ridge First Filing Final Plan to allow
an increase in the number of approved dwelling units from 17 to 24. In addition, the
request proposes to increase the number of approved two-family dwellings (duplexes)
from 5 (ten dwelling units) to 12 (twenty-four dwelling units) resulting in all lots
becoming eligible for a two-family dwelling. The request includes reduction in the lot
sizes of Lot One and Lot Five. This project also proposes to adjust the side yard
setbacks on lots 1, 2, 4, 5, 7 and 10. Specifically Lot 7 is proposed to have a reduced
front yard setback.
The project is seeking four Requests for Modification of Standards. The first is an
increase in density to 2.76 dwelling units per acre. The second is approval of two lots
that are slightly less than one-half acre (.47 and .45 acre). The third is to allow side yard
setbacks that are less than 20 feet. The fourth request is to allow a reduction in the
minimum lot width from 100 to 75 feet.
The site contains 8.7 acres and is located along the west side of Strauss Cabin Road,
approximately one-half mile south of East Harmony Road. The parcel is bordered by
the Willow Brook Subdivision (Observatory Village) on the west and Brookfield
Planning, Development & Transportation Services
F m City, of
ort Collins
September 4, 2012
Community Development & Neighborhood Services
281 North College Avenue
P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522.0580
970.416.2740
970.224.6134- fax
fcgov.com
Attendee of the Sunrise Ridge First Filing Replat and Major Amendment # FDP120009,
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 the Sunrise Ridge First Filing
Replat and Major Amendment # FDP120009 Public Hearing.
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
held on August 20, 2012.
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 4, 2012 by the Hearing Officer. The
deadline to file an appeal is 5:00 p.m. on September 18, 2012. Guidelines explaining
the appeal process, including the Code provisions previously referenced, can be found
online at fcqov.com/ci!yclerk/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 970-221-6343.
Sincerely,
T��
Ted Shepard
Chief City Planner