Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutINNOVATION ISLAND, FIRST FILING - PDP - 40-05A - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 1 - MODIFICATION REQUESTJ. Findings of Fact/Conclusion We understand that in order to approve the Modification Request -the Planning and' Zoning Board must make the following findings: A. The request for a modification to Land Use Code Sections 3.5.2(C)(1)(b), 3.5.2(C)(2), and 3.5.2(D)(1) is subject to review by the Planning and Zoning Board'. B. Granting the requested modification would neither be detrimental•to the public good nor impair the intent and purposes of this Land Use Code. C. Granting the requested modification would allow the project to advance the public interests and purposes of the standard equally well or better than a plan that satisfies the standard as follows: • The site is physically limited in size and is not conducive to creating a,public streetthat loops through the site. • Less use of pavement- is required to provide,private.drives for access to garages rather than a public street. • The proposed plan provides essential attributes of a major walkway spine to serve the units over two hundred feet from a street sidewalk. •' The proposed plan meets density standards and affordable housing cost goals while providing significant open space and playground area., • The proposed plan optimizes visual presentation to surrounding neighbors • , The proposed plan provides the essential attributes of a connecting walkway spine serving the units in buildings B and C. While the applicant could meet this requirement by the elimination of at least-4 units, granting this modification supports the affordable housing- , goals for this development. • Buildings B a5d C would not be required to face a public street. While the applicant could meet this requirement, it would require removal of a•total of four units (two per , building) from the site plan. To meet the affordable housing cost goals, this would require elimination of the playground area to add an additional building: In reviewing the Taft Hill ultimate expansion plans, it was determined the R.O.W. extends further than required to the east, supporting -the proposed site plan R.O.W. reduction to 20 feet for buildings D and E. While the applicant could meet this requirement, it would require removal of a total of two units (one per building) from the site plan. To meet the affordable housing -cost goals; this would require elimination of the,playground area to add an additional building. We recommend approval of the Innovation Island Modification Request. Innovation Island Modifications of Standards Request 11/1/2005 ' 5 • The proposed plan provides essential attributes of a major walkway'spine to serve the units in buildings B and G that are more than two hundred feet from a street sidewalk. • The proposed plan meets density standards and affordable housing cost- goals- while providing significant open space and playground area. • The proposed plan optimizes visual presentation to surrounding neighbors The purpose" of the LUC code section '3.5.2(C)(2) Street -Facing Facades. "Every - building containing four (4) or more dwelling units shall have at least one (1) building entry or doorway facing any adjacent street that is smaller'than a full arterial or, has on - street parking. We feel that the proposed plan promotes the'general purpose of the standard equally well or better than a plan that satisfies the standard as follows: • The two five unit buildings (B and C) would not be required to face a public street. While the applicant could meet this requirement, it would require removal of a total of four units.(two per building) from the site plan. To meet the affordable housing cost goals, this would require elimination of'the playground area to add an additional building. • The site is physically limited in size and is not conducive to creating a public street ` that loops through the site. • The proposed plan meets density standards and affordable housing*cost goals while providing significant open space and playground area. •, The proposed plan optimizes visual presentation to surrounding neighbors • No adjacent street is smaller than a full arterial The purpose of the LUC code section 3.5.2(D)(1) Setback from Arterial Street. ""The minimum setback of every residential building and of every detached accessory -building that is incidental to' the residential building from any arterial street right-of-way shall be thirty (30) feet.", We feel that the proposed plan promotes the general purpose of the standard equally well or better than a plan that satisfies the standard as follows: In reviewing the Taft Hill ultimate expansion plans, it was determined the R.O.W. extends further than required to the east, supporting the proposed site plan R.O.W. reduction to 20 feet for buildings D and E. • While the applicant could meet this requirement, it would require removal of a total of two units (one per building) from the site plari. To meet the affordable housing " cost goals, this would require elimination of the playground area to add an additional - building. , _ r • The proposed plammeets density standards and affoidable-housing cost goals while providingsignificant open space and playground area. • The proposed plan optimises visual presentation to surrounding neighbors Innovation Island Modifications of Standards Request 11/l/2005 4 cost `goals. Code Section: 3.5.2(C)(2)-Stree1-Facing Facades.'Every building containing four (4) or more dwelling units shall have at least one (1) building entry or doorway facing any adjacent street that is smaller than a full arterial or has on -street parking. - Discussion: - In the proposed site plans two of the proposed five'Linit buildings (B and C) do not meet this requirement. This requirement could be met by changing these buildings to three unit building types. By doing this, the affordable housing cost goals will not be met Ana the - site does not support additional units -unless the applicant eliminates the playground area. Code Section: 3.51(13)(1) Setback from Arterial Street. The minimum setback of every residential building and of every, detached accessory building that is incidental to the residential building from any arterial street right-of-way shall be thirty (30) feet. Discussion: The setback to Taft Hill is 20. feet for the two five -unit buildings (D and E) on the west side of the site. Iu reviewing this setback with city transportation engineering, it was discovered that the expansion of Taft Hill to ultimate configuration will -be primarily to the west and not require the full R.O.W. on the east. This requirement could be met by reducing the two buildings by one unit. This would not meet the affordable housing cost, goals and given the plans for Taft Hill expansion is not an absolute requirement. Justifcatioi7 We understand that in order to approve the Modification Request the Planning and Zoning Board must make the following findings: ' A) The Planning and Zoning Board may grant a modification of standard_ s only if it finds -that the granting of the modification would not be detrimental to the public good; We feel that the proposed plan allows the -developer to achieve :the affordable housing cost goals, optimizes the development's visual presentation to the adjacent neighborhood, and is not _ detrimental to the public good. ' B) The plan as submitted will promote -the general purpose of the standard for which. the modification is requested equally well -or better than would a plan which complies with the standard for which a modification is requested; The purpose of the LUC code section ' 3.5.2(C)(1)(b) Orientation to a Connecting Walkway. "Everyfront facade with, a primary entrance to a dwelling unit shall face the adjacent street to the extent reasonably feasible. Every front facade with a primary.entranee to d dwelling unit shall face a connecting walkway with no primary entrance more than two hundred "(200) feet from a, { street sidewalk " We feel that the proposed plan promotes the general purpose of the,standard equally well or better than a planthat satisfies the standard as follows: ' • The site is physically limited in size and is not conducive to creating a public street that loops through the site. ` Innovation Island Modifications of Standards. Request ll/l/2005 3 0 Five multifamily buildings are proposed, identified as buildings A-E. Of the'five buildings being proposed, four.buildings (B, C, D and E) contain five units, one building (A) contains seven units.. The two -of the five -"it buildings (D and E) are adjacent to Taft Hill, the.seven unit building (A) faces Harmony Road. Buildings B and C are internal to the site and do not have direct frontage onto any public street. Further, buildings D and E are within 30 feet of the Taft Hill ultimate R.O.W. These buildings are the reason for this modification request. The applicant feels that the,proposed design best achieves the project objectives" of meeting the • affordable housing cost goals while optimizing fit -of.; development with the adjacent . residential neighborhood.. We have explored with staff alternatives to the proposed site plan and have modified the plan to incorporate ' their guidance. This has not resulted in a plan that meets the code requirements and as a result the applicant is requesting a modification to 3.5.2(C)(1)(b) Orientation to a,Connecting Walkway, 3.5.2(C)(2) Street Facing Facades, and 3.5.2(D)(1) Setback from Arterial Streets. _ Modifications to development requirements ; Code Section: 3.5.2(C)(1)(b) Orientation to a Connecting_ Walkway: (Every front facade with a primary entrance,to a dwelling unit shall face the adjacent street "to the extent reasonably feasible. Every front facade with a primary entrance to a dwelling unit shall face a connecting walkway with, no.primary entrance more thantwo hundred. (200) feet from , a street . sidewalk. The following exceptions to this standard are permitted: (a) Up to two (2) single-family detached dwellings op an individual lot that has frontage on either a public -or private"street. (b) A primary entrance may be up to three hundred fifty (350) feet from a street sidewalk if the primary entrance faces and, opens directly •onto 'a connecting walkway -that qualifies as a major walkway spine. (c) If a molti-family building has more than one (1) front facade, and.if one (1) of the front facades faces and opens directly onto•a street sidewalk, the primary entrances located on the. other front facade(s) need not face a, street sidewalk or connecting walkway. Discussion: As -discussed in the background information, this parcel is severely constrained ' in size and shape. Placing -a public street within the patcel.is not feasible and would impact the fit with the neighborhood and prohibit the achievement of sufficient density to mget_the affordable housing cost goals. The two five unit buildings _(B and C) are oriented to a connecting walkway. However, the primary entrance to each unit is more than two hundred,feet from•a street sidewalk. Additionally, the site is 'not of adequate size to support a compliant major walkway spine serving these units, specifically one -that . is thirty-five feet in its .smallest dimension, both sides landscaped, with all parts, visible from a public street. The -proposed-site plan does meet a portion of the requirements of a major walkway, spine serving these units, including provision of trees along one, side of the five foot wide sidewalk. This requirement could_be met by eliminating one. of the buildings and rotating the remaining building 90 degrees to achieve the requirements of a majoi walkway spine serving these units. Doing so 'would eliminate at least 4 units, resulting in an inability to meet the affordable housing Innovation Island Modifications of Standards Request l l/l/2005 2 - MODIFICATION REQUEST, INNOVATION ISLAND We are submitting this -request for modification of standards for the Innovation Island infill project to address the following items: . A. Modificatiotrof standards to Section 3.5.2(C)(1)(b) of the LUC, accepting,proposed connecting walkway for buildings B and C. B. Modification of standards to Section. 3.5.2(C)(2) of the LUC, accepting proposed site plan in . which two five unit buildings (buildings B and C).do not have at least one building entry or doorway facing an adjacent street. C. Modification of standards to Section 3.5.2(D)(1) of the LUC, accepting a reduction in buildings D. and E setback to Taft Hill ROW., PROJECT BACKGROUND Innovation Island is a 4.4 acre site affordable housing project located south and adjacent to Harmony, Road and east and adjacent to Taft Hill Road in southwest Fort Collins. The site is zoned LMN. The Project Development Plan includes only the t3.2 acre residential 'usage, with toe other usage(s) to be defined in a separate Project Development Plan. ' The primary purpose of this modification iequest is to optimize the placement of multi4amily buildings to effectively utilize the limited space available, accomplishing the following objectives: • Satisfy the Principles and Policies for Low Density Mixed Use Neighborhoods_ • Achieve sufficient density to meet affordable housing cost goals r • Optimize fit of development with residential neighborhood to south within constraints of', affordable housing cost goals This particular parcel. is -constrained as a result of its size and being roughly triangular shaped, with a rectangular section of the intersection of Taft Hill and Harmony not being part'of this parcel. Due to these constraints combined with the project objectives, placement of buildings• meeting the LUC requirements is nbt feasible and the applicant feels other design options are more viable on this parcel of land. , The preferred plan being proposed by the applicanf proposes twenty-seven (27) single family attached units on the site placed in five separate. buildings. ,The, front of each unit. has access to a public street via a connecting walkway. A private drive, meeting private drive standards,. provides access to all units, with no ' public streets within the project. Each building is adjacent to landscaped open space. During the design of this parcel, careful attention was paid to emergency access. Each building and unit is accessible from -the private drive, which will be dedicated as an emergency access easement. All private' "drives have been designed to accommodate the emergency. vehicles. The applicant has also agreed to incorporate'the following elements into the site plan after meetings with the Poudre Fire Authority: • Each unit will have a "man door" on the private drive to provide additional access to the units. Above each 'man door" will be the address of each unit, to help emergency personhel 'in distinguishing one unit from another: •. Provide an address kiosk at the entrance to the private drive on Harmony Road showing location of each building and unit.. The kiosk will be lighted. Innovation lsland Modifications of Standards Request I I/l/2005 1