Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout300 SMITH STREET, OLD TOWN COMMONS - FDP - 39-03B - REPORTS - APPLICANT COMMUNICATION (3)Page 5 Continuation above Assuming the lot was to benefit visually from the ROW space, the lot size could have a visual size of 205 feet in length by 70 feet wide for a total of 14,350 square feet of space. This is more than adequate to accommodate a 4750 three -dwelling structure and comply with the LUC Sections 4.8.D.1 and Section 4.8.D.5. The visual effect of three attached dwellings (one dwelling facing Smith Street and the two others facing Olive Street) is more attractive, and with more architectural diversity than one large 4250 square feet building. Summary We were shocked and chagrined when we learned for the first time in mid -October, 2010, and after having been granted two one-year administrative extensions by the Planning and Development Department, that our Project did not meet new standards based on amendments made to the Fort Collins Land Use Code (LUC) subsequent to the inception of our project on November 18, 2003. We were even more stunned to learn on October 21, 2010, that a moratorium of all construction of dwellings on the rear of lots was enacted by the City Council on January 20, 2004. This was just two months after the beginning of our project. The moratorium eventually resulted in the passage of Ordinance 063, April 2004, which, with its restrictive language, critically effected the future viability of the Old Town Commons Project. We hope you agree the arguments presented above justify the relief requested in resolving this unfortunate situation, which could have been prevented with better and clearer communications between the developer and the cadre of City advisors assigned to the developer between 2003-2005. Bachmann Enterprises is not asking for unusual or exceptional relief but merely for the continuation of a Project that has already been approved by the Planning and Zoning Board and which has received the support of the neighborhood. We are requesting an extension of three years in recognition of the unfortunate fact that the Project was caught in between Land Use Code changes: the failure in communication by the City staff as to the potential ramification of Ordinance 063, 2004 and subsequent ordinances on the Project's viability if not built within the vested years: the actual costs to the developer of plan and development expenses: the fact that recent market conditions and economic cycles dictate prudent approach to the construction of a housing project: and the fact the Project enhances the Eastside neighborhood and Downtown gateway with much needed infrastructure. Page 4 Continuation above proceeded with the project at all, and certainly would not have spent twenty-eight thousand ($28,000) dollars in planning and development expenses. In fact, it would not have been economically feasible to develop a project on the subject property with the limitations imposed by FAR. In addition, the FAR standard, if applied indiscriminately in the N-C-M zone district, might not recognize the unique circumstances effecting a Project's location. In the case of Old Town Commons these are: • The subject lot is a corner lot, thus it gives the impression that more land is available for the proposed dwelling than an interior block lot. The right of way on Olive Street is very ample, more than in many comer lots in new developments, thus giving the impression that more land is available. Although the lot is 50 feet wide (N-S) by 190 feet long (E-W), in reality because of the corner location and ROW strip, the lot becomes more like a 70 feet wide from the Olive Street curb to the south property line and 205 feet from the west sidewalk to the alley. The subject lot is bounded on three sides: Smith Street, Olive Street and an alley, and is located on the periphery of Old Town. • One of the considerations in the creation of FAR was to prevent buildings which restrict light from existing dwellings, or limit the privacy of the adjacent backyards. Old Town Commons design does not obstruct any view from the auto repair business. On the contrary, it limits visibility of the commercial building as you drive east on Olive Street, as well as enhancing the alley view as you drive west on Olive Street. To the north of the lot, facing Olive Street, Old Town Commons will enhance the view of the commercial building/insurance/apartment complex by providing a view of a nicely landscaped dwelling instead of the current vacant east end of the lot. To the south, it will provide an additional noise buffer to the immediate homes as well as enhance the alley. Moreover, per Section 4.8.D.1 Land Use Standards, Density/Intensity of Development (LUC) the subject lot with a dimension of 190 feet by 50 feet (9500 square feet), would allow the new construction of one dwelling equal to one half of the lot size, i.e., 4250 square feet. The plan submitted for this plat provides for 4750 square feet in three attached dwellings instead of one. The dgasidifference between what was approved in 2005 and what is allowed in 2010 and this standard is minimal. Page 3 • Enhancing an important neighborhood gateway. Improvements to the property will result in a much more attractive and appealing gateway to the Eastside Neighborhood than the existing east vacant lot with a storage shed. • Resolving an existing pedestrian system deficiency. When Bachmann builds the "missing link" in the sidewalk system that is a condition of the development approval, the result will be a continuous sidewalk system from College Avenue to Riverside. It is important to recognize that there is no sidewalk on either side of Olive Street from Smith Street to Riverside Avenue. If Old Town Commons is not built, there will be no sidewalk. Compliance with Section 4.8(D)(5) of the Land Use Code: Floor Area Ratio (FAR). Lots are subject to a maximum FAR of thirty-three hundredths (0.33) on the rear fifty (50) percent of the lot as it existed on October 25, 1991. The lot area used as the basis for the FAR calculation shall be considered the minimum lot size within the zone district. Response This standard was not in place on November 18, 2003 at the inception of the Project. Bachmann requests the above standard be waived by the Planning and Zoning Board, and the plat approved in 2005 for Old Town Commons be grandfathered for the following reasons: • From day one, Bachmann worked very closely with all of the assigned City staff and followed very closely their advice and suggestions. It was reasonable for Bachmann to place reliance upon the City staff because their full-time job and function is to provide guidance to citizens as they navigate through the complex planning and development process. • Not only did Bachmann rely on the City Planning Staff between 2003-2005, but also in 2008 and in 2009 when an extension to the construction of the Project was requested and granted by the Planning Department on the basis of economic market conditions. • At no time was Bachmann informed in 2008 or in 2009 that economic market conditions were not a valid basis for granting an extension, or that this Project was in non-compliance with the revised LUC standards and most critically the FAR standard. If Bachmann had been made aware of the January 2004 moratorium or the 2004 limitations of the newly revised FAR standard, Bachmann would not have Page 2 Continuation above developer felt that protecting the well -established trees was imperative to the integrity of the neighborhood. The alley upgrade also requires considerable work. It is also important to recognize the Project already has in place substantial engineering infrastructure such as water and sewer taps, electricity, curb and gutters, and street design. Bachmann respectfully asks the Planning & Zoning Board to consider the engineering infrastructure in existence, as well as the engineering design work completed to date, as Bachmann's good faith efforts to move forward with the full-scale redevelopment envisioned under the original development plan approved by the Planning and Zoning Board in 2005. (c) Granting the extension will not be detrimental to the public good. Response In our opinion, the public good will be enhanced by the Project through: Reinvestment in a key infill site that supports a range of City goals and objectives. The approved Plan is consistent with the City's principles and policies found in the City's Comprehensive Plan "City Plan", the REFILL studies, and the new DRAFT Comprehensive Plan "Plan Fort Collins ", in that it calls for the sensitive redevelopment of a site served by a full range of existing urban services. Creating an appropriate land use transition and providing a noise buffer. The property is strategically located near the east entry of the Eastside Neighborhood and provides a necessary buffer and transition between high-speed Riverside Avenue and the heart of the beloved residential area. The subject property faces a commercial building/insurance/apartment complex to the north and, to the east, an auto restoration business. Mitigating noise from Riverside's truck route. The City of Fort Collins has spent a substantial amount of time and money in trying to divert truck traffic away from State Highway 14 to State Highway 287 to little avail. Riverside Avenue continues to be the preferred truck route for driving to northwest states. The heavy vehicle traffic on Riverside is the cause of continual noise in the neighborhood. A dwelling alongside East Olive Street will help mitigate that noise. Providing a visual barrier from adjacent commercial buildings to the east. The auto restoration business to the east of the subject lot is a very intense land -use building which limits the types of buildings to be built west of it. Old Town Commons provides a much needed visual buffer to the more quaint area along East Olive Street towards Library Park. Request for Project Extension Old Town Commons 300 Smith Street, Fort Collins Submitted by Rosita M. Bachmann Bachmann Enterprises, LLC November 23, 2010 Distinguished members of the Planning and Zoning Board: Bachmann Enterprises, LLC (Bachmann) hereby presents arguments in support of our request for an extension to build the Old Town Commons Project as originally approved by the Planning and Zoning Board in 2005. Bachmann appeals to the Board's sense of fairness in the interpretation and application of Land Use Code (LUC) standards enacted after the approval and filing the original plat for Old Town Commons. Extension Criteria Requirements per Section 2.2.11 Step 11, (DA) LUC Any additional one-year extensions shall be approved, if at all, only by the Planning & Zoning Board, upon finding that the plan complies with all applicable general development standards contained in Article 3 and Zone District Standards as contained in Article 4 at the time of the application for the extension, and that a) The applicant has been diligent in constructing the engineering improvements required pursuant to paragraph (3) above, though such improvements have not been fully constructed, Response • Although Bachmann has not fully completed the requisite engineering infrastructure improvements, it has been diligent in designing them. This effort to satisfy all City engineering standards represents a significant expenditure of time and resources. During the development review process (2003-5), our consulting engineers provided detailed designs for sidewalk, storm drainage and alley improvements as well as design of the buildings. Over 250 hours of professional engineering services were expended during this time period in addition to limitless amount of my own time and effort in conceptualization, planning and coordination of the project. Although the design and development expenses may appear high, it is important to note that the subject lot possesses many unique characteristics which make it more expensive to develop. Mainly, it is an infill project in one of the oldest parts of town with limited or non-existent surrounding infrastructures such as an alley or a sidewalk. The sidewalk for the Project (190 feet in length) was designed to accommodate the mature trees along Olive Street. This type of sidewalk is more costly to build than a straight one. However the