HomeMy WebLinkAboutSUNRISE RIDGE FIRST FILING, MAJOR AMEND. & REPLAT - FDP - FDP120009 - REPORTS - RECOMMENDATION/REPORTD. A 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 has
been reviewed and evaluated and found to not 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.
E. A Request for Modification of Standard to Section 4.2(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 has been reviewed and evaluated and found to not
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.
F. A 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 has been evaluated
and evaluated and found to not 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.
G. The replat complies with Section 3.3.1 of the Land Use Code.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the four Requests for Modification and Sunrise
Ridge First Filing Major Amendment and Replat, #FDP120009.
10
Staff contends that the 100-foot minimum lot width would result in a building
envelope setback an unusual length uncharacteristic of a residential subdivision.
Front yards of such length are inefficient use of 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 -user in mind. There is no clearly
established development pattern or character that would be impacted by
reducing the minimum lot width on Lot 7. The resulting front yard building
setback will remain in excess of the minimum required 30 feet.
Staff, therefore finds that 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.
7. Neighborhood Compatibility:
A neighborhood meeting is not required for a Major Amendment and Replat
subject to administrative review.
8. Conclusion and Findings of Fact:
In evaluating the request for Sunrise Ridge First Filing Major Amendment and
Replat., Staff makes the following findings of fact:
A. The land use, two-family dwelling, is permitted in the Urban Estate zone
subject to administrative review.
B. The Major Amendment and Replat continue to comply with the land use
standards and development standards of the Urban Estate zone district
with four exceptions.
C. A Request for Modification of Standard to Section 4.2(D)(1)(a) to allow an
increase in the overall average density from 2.00 to 2.76 dwelling units per
gross acre has been reviewed and evaluated and found to not 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.
9
6. Fourth Modification — Urban Estate Required Minimum Lot Width — Lot
Seven:
A. The standard at issue — Section 4.2(D)(2)(a):
"(a) Minimum lot width shall be one hundred (100) feet"
Section 5.1.2 provides the following definitions:
"Lot width shall mean the horizontal (plan view) distance between the side
lot lines as measured along a straight line parallel to the front lot line or the
chord thereof. The minimum lot width shall be measured between the side
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."
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 building envelope would have to be a minimum of 70 feet from
the back of 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.
B. Applicant's Justification:
The applicant explains that this reduction in lot width is necessary in order to
accommodate the proposed building envelope. Also, the applicant indicates that
a 70-foot setback from Daylight Court is excessive and would appear abnormal
when viewed from the perspective of the neighborhood as a whole. Since 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 Evaluation and Finding of Fact:
8
basis. This,is because in 2006, the applicant did not have a building product
envisioned but was simply anticipating a market for generic estate lots.
The current applicant is requesting that Lots 1,2,4,5, 7 10 be allowed to feature
side yard setbacks that are less than the required minimum 20-foot side yard
setback.
B. Applicant's Justification:
The applicant has provided written justification that all affected side yard
setbacks are internal to the subdivision and do not adjoin public right-of-way.
Further, on Lots 4 and 7, the differential between compliance and the requested
Modification only impacts a slight angle and small lot area after which full
compliance is achieved. (See shaded areas on the Site Plan, attached.) For
Lots 1,2 and 5, the differential runs for the entire depth of the lot and the
requested setback is 10 feet. Lot for Lot 10, the differential runs the entire depth
of the lot and the requested setback is 15 feet.
The applicant contends that given the size and scale of the entire subdivision,
and the size of the lots relative to the surrounding area, that these reductions in
side yard setbacks will not visible or impactful to the public. For the angled
conditions, the effect is miniscule. For the others, there will remain at least 20
feet between structures which is twice the distance for structures in either
Observatory Village or Morningside Village. For these reasons, the applicant
seeks to justify the Modification under the nominal and inconsequential provision.
C. Staff Evaluation and Finding of Fact:
Staff finds that the visual character of Sunrise Ridge First Filing is not 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 perhaps a case could be made that reduced side yard
setbacks would have a measurable effect. But, the adjoining subdivisions are
denser with a significantly different character such that Sunrise Ridge, even with
the requested side yard setbacks, will continue to perform at a level that is
distinctive relative to the.context of the general area. Despite the reduced side
yard setbacks, Sunrise Ridge, with an average lot size 22, 287 square feet, will
continue to be perceived as a spacious, large -lot neighborhood.
Staff, therefore finds that in compliance with Section 2.8.2(H), the proposed
reductions in side 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.
B. Applicant's Justification:
The applicant has provided written justification 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 a potential single
family detached dwelling (seven lots) or a two-family dwelling (five lots) within the
platted lot lines. Now, as proposed, the two-family dwelling is the preferred
housing model. Further, the applicant has a market -tested, two-family model
with precise building dimensions that require the replatting.
In addition, the applicant states that based on all 12 lots, the average lot size is
22,287 square feet or .51 acre. The applicant asserts, therefore, that Sunrise
Ridge will be experienced by the neighborhood and community as being
compliant with the standard. For these reasons, the applicant seeks to justify the
Modification under the nominal and inconsequential provision.
C. Staff Evaluation and Finding of Fact:
Relative to the two adjoining neighborhoods, the lot sizes in Sunrise Ridge First
Filing are dramatically larger. For example, as mentioned, the overall average
density in Observatory Village is 5.00 dwelling units per acre and Morningside
Village is 7.00 dwelling units per acre. In contrast, 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
juxtaposition of all three subdivisions. In other words, the character established
by the large lots of Sunrise Ridge is not diminished vis-a-vis the smaller lots and
higher density of the two adjoining neighborhoods.
Staff, therefore finds that in compliance with Section 2.8.2(H), the proposed
decrease in lot area for Lots One (20,339 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.
5. Third Modification — Urban Estate Required Minimum Side Yard Setbacks
— Lots One, Two, Four, Five and Ten:
A. The standard at issue — Section 4.2(D)(2)(d):
"(d) Minimum side yard width shall 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
6
past 15 years (the Land Use Code and Structure Plan Map were adopted in
1997). As stated in the supporting narrative from the owner, Mr. Kelly Smith,
(dated November 11, 2011, attached) there really are no properties exhibiting the
characteristics of rural residential, rural small farm or rural ranchette within one -
quarter mile of the site. The area is clearly suburban (L-M-N) and urban (H-C),
not rural.
C. Staff Evaluation and Finding of Fact:
The size and scale of the two adjoining subdivisions speak to the predominant
urban character of the area. Both Observatory Village and Morningside Village
are still in the process of reaching full build -out. Ultimately, both projects are
zoned and vested for the following:
Observatory Village — L-M-N, 517 dwelling units on 113 acres
Morningside Village — H-C, 298 dwelling units on 37 acres.
Both projects include a mix of housing types including single family detached,
single family attached and multi -family. In addition, Staff finds that there is little, if
any, rural -like character within the surrounding area.
As proposed, the density of 2.76 dwelling units per acre is significantly lower than
the two adjoining projects so as to retain a large -lot ambiance that is distinctive
within the general vicinity.
In compliance with Section 2.8.2(H), Staff 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 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. Second Modification — Urban Estate Required Minimum Lot Size — Lots
One and Five:
A. The standard at issue — Section 4.2(D)(1)(b):
"(b) Lot sizes shall be one-half (%) 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.
5
A. The standard at issue — Section 4.2(D)(1)(a):
(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 resulting in
a density of 1.99 dwelling units per gross acre.
The applicant is requesting 24 dwelling units on 8.7 acres resulting in a density of
2.76 dwelling units per gross acre. This is an increase of seven dwelling units.
B. Applicant's Justification:
The applicant has provided written justification that refers to the purpose
statement of the Urban Estate zone district. This purpose statement is repeated
here:
Purpose. The Urban Estate District is intended to be a setting for a
predominance of low -density and large -lot housing. The main purposes of
this District are to acknowledge the presence of the many existing
subdivisions which have developed in these uses that function as parts of
the community and to provide additional locations for similar development,
typically in transitional locations between more intense urban development
and rural or open lands.
The applicant contends that since the 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. For example, the applicant's narrative indicates that the subdivision to
the west, Observatory Village, is zoned L-M-N, Low Density Mixed -Use
Neighborhood, with a minimum overall gross density of 5.00 dwelling units per
acre. Similarly, the subdivision to the north, Morningside Village, is zoned H-C,
Harmony Corridor, with a minimum overall gross density of 7.00 dwelling units
per acre. There is no development to the east as this area 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, classified as a collector street.
Due to surrounding development and conditions, Sunrise Ridge First Filing no
longer epitomizes the vision of an Urban Estate subdivision. The proposed
density, while slightly higher than 2.00 dwelling units per acre, is still below
neighboring subdivisions to the north and west.
The major thrust of the applicant's justification is that any Urban Estate character
that once defined the general vicinity has been significantly diminished over the
a]
Sunrise Ridge Second Filing was approved on November 21, 2007 and consists
of seven lots on 5.04 acres and is 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 at this time.
In general, the Major Amendment and Replat represent a market -driven
response to conditions that have fundamentally shifted since 2005/2006.
Whereas in 2005/2006, the objective was to provide estate lots in a prototypical
Urban Estate setting, the current objective is to provide two-family dwellings
within a context that has become more urban/suburban.
2. Replat:
The request is to slightly adjust three side lot lines at the following locations:
Between Lots One and Two
Between Lots Four and Five
Between Lots Five and Six.
All three lot line adjustments are internal to the project and are not shared with
public right-of-way. There is no change in the number of lots. All lots continue to
have access to public right-of-way. All lots continue to comply with all the
applicable criteria of Section 3.3.1 as follows:
Section 3.3.1(8)(2) — Plat Standards — Street System and Natural Areas
This standard requires that the general layout of lots, roads, driveways,
utilities, drainage facilities be designed in a way that enhances an
interconnected street system and preserves natural areas.
There will be no changes to the public street system and no impacts on
natural areas as a result of this replat.
Section 3.3.1(C)(1) - Dedications
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.
Since the request is to simply adjust three internal side lot lines, there are
no requirements to dedicate land for public streets, utilities or drainage
facilities.
3. First Modification — Urban Estate Maximum Allowable Density:
3
RECOMMENDATION: Approval of the four Requests for Modification of
standard, the major amendment and the replat.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Two-family dwellings are permitted in the Urban Estate zone subject to
administrative review. The replat complies with the applicable standards of
Section 3.3.1. The four Requests for Modification comply with the applicable
criteria of Section 2.8.2(H).
COMMENTS:
1. Background:
The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows:
N: H-C; Existing and Developing Multi -Family (Brookfield Subdivision —
marketed as Morningside Townhomes)
S: U-E; Sunrise Ridge Second Filing (vacant)
E: FA-1 (County); Vacant — Fossil Creek Reservoir Inlet Ditch
W: L-M-N; Existing Single Family Attached (Willowbrook Subdivision — marketed
as Observatory Village)
Originally part of a large farm, the seven lots that front on Strauss Cabin Road
(the section line road) were split off from the original farm approximately 25 years
ago prior to annexation. These lots all range in size between approximately five
to ten acres. For Sunrise Ridge First Filing, the original house is now 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 of 2005.
Sunrise Ridge First Filing was approved on October 12, 2006 and consists of 12
lots. Five of these lots were deemed eligible for two-family dwellings, also known
as a "duplex," for a total of 10 dwelling units. The remaining seven lots were
limited to single family detached dwellings allowing for a total of 17 dwelling units.
So far only one two-family dwelling has been constructed located on Lot One. As
mentioned, the original existing house on Lot Six remains. All other lots remain
vacant at this time.
2
of
F Collins
ITEM NO �—
MEETING DATE
STAFF 74t!�-.o
HEARING OFFICER
PROJECT: Sunrise Ridge, First Filing, Replat and Major Amendment
F.D.P., #120009
APPLICANT: Mr. David Houts
Bogard Construction
300 East Horsetooth Road #103
Fort Collins, CO 80525
OWNERS: Mr. Kelly Smith
5102 Daylight Court
Fort Collins, CO 80528
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
This is a request to replat and amend the Sunrise Ridge First Filing Final Plan
such that there would be an increase in the number of approved dwelling units
from 17 to 24. Also, the project proposes to increase the number of approved
two-family dwellings (duplexes) from five (ten dwelling units) to 12 (24 dwelling
units) resulting in all lots becoming eligible for a two-family dwelling. The request
includes slightly reducing the lot sizes on Lot One and Lot Five. The project also
proposes to adjust the side yard setbacks on Lots 1,2,4,5, 7 and 10. Finally, for
Lot 7, the request is to slightly reduce the front yard setback.
Since the proposed project includes an increase in density to 2.76 dwelling units
per acre, and two lots that are slightly less than one-half acre (.47 and .45 acre),
and that six lots seek side yard setbacks that are less than 20 feet, and that one
lot proposes a slight reduction in the minimum lot width from 100 to 75 feet, the
project is seeking four Requests for Modification of Standard.
The site contains 8.7 acres and is located along the west sides 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 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.
Current Planning 281 N College Ave - PO Box 580 - Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580
fcgov.com/currentplanning 970.221.6750