The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutRIGDEN FARM, 11TH FILING, BROOKLYN PARK ROW HOUSES - PDP - 56-98AD - DECISION - FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & DECISIONLl yoZ"O-/Z etlo 2 o3/3 // � 62cib _ %Z✓� . J��Q � �� Qom" �� 33� kvZ,_ Cc Rigden Farm 11t' Filing, Brooklyn Park Rowhouses PDP Administrative Hearing Findings, Conclusions, and Decision August 24, 2005 Page 11 of 5 planting strip ranging from 4'-4" to 4'-11" wide along the driveway / parking area on the east side of the development. Along the outer edge of the planting strip will be a 3'-6" high picket fence with shrubs fronting it. The combination of the fence and proposed deciduous shrubs will provide the necessary parking lot perimeter landscaping and screening to the adjacent property, as set forth in Section 3.2.1(E)(4)(b) of the LUC. However, the minimum width requirement for the planting strip and the required trees in the strip are not being satisfied. The somewhat diminished width is considered to be inconsequential since adequate screening is being provided. Because of the necessary separation from the existing 48" storm sewer that is present right along the property line the required trees, as set forth in Section 3.2.1(E)(4)(a), cannot be located in the planting strip. The developer for the Rigden Farm 11tn Filing, Brooklyn Park Rowhouses, PDP is working out an agreement with the developer for Rigden Farm 12tn Filing, the Colony to allow additional trees to be located on that property as mitigation. The agreement will be finalized with the Final Compliance review of this development request. C. The Rigden Farm 11tn Filing, Brooklyn Park Rowhouses, PDP complies with all applicable Land Use and Development Standards contained in Article 4, Division 4.5 of the LUC. D. The Rigden Farm 11th Filing, Brooklyn Park Rowhouses, PDP is compatible with the surrounding land uses. DECISION The request for a modification of the standard in Section 3.2.1(E)(4), Subsection 3.21(E)(4)(a) of the Land Use Code is hereby approved by the Hearing Officer. The request for a modification of the standard in Section 3.2.2(J) of the Land Use Code is hereby approved by the Hearing Oficer. The Rigden Farm 11tn Filing, Brooklyn Park Rowhouses, Project Development Plan - #56-98AD is hereby approved by the Hearing Officer. Dated this 24th day of August 2005, per au ranted by Sections 1.4.9(E) and 2.1 of the Land Use Co . Current Plan Rigden Farm 11th Filing, Brooklyn Park Rowhouses PDP Administrative Hearing Findings, Conclusions, and Decision August 24, 2005 Page 10 of 5 planting strip ranging from 4'-4" to 4'-11" wide along the driveway / parking area on the east side of the development. Along the outer edge of the planting strip will be a 3'-6" high picket fence with shrubs fronting it. The combination of the fence and proposed deciduous shrubs will provide the necessary parking lot perimeter landscaping and screening to the adjacent property, as set forth in Section 3.2.1(E)(4)(b) of the LUC. However, the minimum width requirement for the planting strip and the required trees in the strip are not being satisfied. The somewhat diminished width is considered to be inconsequential since adequate screening is being provided. Because of the necessary separation from the existing 48" storm sewer that is present right along the property line the required trees, as set forth in Section 3.2.1(E)(4)(a), cannot be located in the planting strip. The developer for the Rigden Farm 11th Filing, Brooklyn Park Rowhouses, PDP is working out an agreement with the developer for Rigden Farm 12th Filing, the Colony to allow additional trees to be located on that property as mitigation. The agreement will be finalized with the Final Compliance review of this development request. Therefore, staff is recommending that the Administrative Hearing Officer approve the request for modifications of the standards set forth in Subsection 3.2.1(E)(4)(a) and Section 3.2.2(J), based on the criteria set forth in Section 2.8.2(H)(3) of the LUC. SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS A. The Rigden Farm 11th Filing, Brooklyn Park Rowhouses, PDP contains uses permitted in the MMN — Medium Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood Zoning District, subject to Administrative Review and public hearing. B. The Rigden Farm 11th Filing, Brooklyn Park Rowhouses, PDP meets all applicable standards as put forth in the LUC, including Division 3.2 - Site Planning and Design Standards, Division 3.3 — Engineering Standards, Division 3.5 - Building Standards, and Section 3.6 - Transportation and Circulation, with the following exceptions: Section 3.2.1(E)(4), Subsection 3.2.1(E)(4)(a) - Trees are required to be provided at a ratio of 1 tree per 40 lineal feet in a parking setback area. Section 3.2.2(J) - This section requires a minimum 5' landscaped setback area along a lot line adjacent to any vehicular use area. Staff finds that the project as submitted, based on the land use and its contextual compatibility with the surrounding land uses, is not detrimental to the public good. The Landscape Plan as submitted provides for a Rigden Farm 11`h Filing, Brooklyn Park Rowhouses PDP Administrative Hearing Findings, Conclusions, and Decision August 24, 2005 Page 9 of 5 elements, or to enhance outdoor spaces from the adjacent residential buildings. As specified in Section 2.8.2 Modification Review Procedures, (H) (Standards), the Administrative Hearing Officer may grant a modification of standards only if it finds the granting of the modification would not be detrimental to the public good; and that: (1) 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; or (2) the granting of a modification from the strict application of any standard would, without impairing the intent and purpose of this Land Use Code, substantially alleviate an existing, defined and described problem of city- wide concern or would result in a substantial benefit to the city by reason of the fact that the proposed project would substantially address an important community need specifically and expressly defined and described in the city's Comprehensive Plan, or in an adopted policy, ordinance or resolution of the City Council, and the strict application of such a standard would render the project practically infeasible; or (3) by reason of exceptional physical conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional situations, unique to such property, including, but not limited to, physical conditions such as exceptional narrowness, shallowness or topography, or physical conditions which hinder the owners ability to install a solar energy system, the strict application of the standard sought to be modified would result in unusual and exceptional practical difficulties, or exceptional or undue hardship upon the owner of such property, provided that such difficulties or hardship are not caused by the act or omission of the applicant; or (4) the plan as submitted will not diverge from the standards of the Land Use Code that are authorized by this Division to be modified 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. City Staff Evaluation: Staff finds that the project as submitted, based on the land use and its contextual compatibility with the surrounding land uses, is not detrimental to the public good. The Landscape Plan as submitted provides for a Rigden Farm 11t' Filing, Brooklyn Park Rowhouses PDP Administrative Hearing Findings, Conclusions, and Decision August 24, 2005 Page 8 of 5 between activity areas and site elements, enhance outdoor spaces, reduce erosion and stormwater runoff, and mitigate air pollution." Additionally, Section 2.8.2(H) of the LUC specifies the criteria by which a modification request is evaluated. In accordance with this criteria, the modification is not detrimental to the public good, and 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 proposed layout of our vehicular use area is not detrimental to the public good because the adjacent property (the Colony PDP currently under review) proposes a 53 feet, 9 inch wide setback area adjacent to the common property line. Within the Colony's setback, they are proposing a large lawn area and many tree, shrubs and landscaping beds. There is therefore more than adequate physical separation and screening between our proposed vehicular use area and the nearest proposed building on the adjacent property. The proposed alternative landscape plan accomplishes said purposes of this Section of the LUC equally well than would a plan which complies with the standard as follows: • The alternative landscape plan preserves and incorporates existing vegetation equally well as a code compliant plan because there is no existing vegetation on the site to preserve. • The alternative landscape plan protects natural areas and features equally well as a code compliant plan because there are no natural areas or features that are affected by the proposed development. • The alternative landscape plan maximizes tree canopy cover equally well as a code compliant plan because the quantity of trees that would have been provided every 40 feet along the east side of the vehicular area the standard are being provided elsewhere on our site, and additionally, the adjacent development to the east is providing additional trees off our site, but near our vehicular area. • The alternative landscape plan enhances neighborhood continuity and connectivity equally well as a code compliant plan because the location of trees does not affect neighborhood continuity and connectivity. • The alternative landscape plan fosters non -vehicular access equally well as a code compliant plan because the location of trees does not affect non -vehicular access. • The alternative landscape plan demonstrates innovative design and use of plant materials and other landscape elements equally well as a code compliant plan because either plan (compliant plan or alternative plan) will provide the same number of trees. The alternative location of the required trees does not detract from the plans ability to contribute to visual quality and continuity within and between developments, to provide screening and mitigation of potential conflicts between activity areas and site Rigden Farm 111h Filing, t3rooklyn Park Rowhouses PDP Administrative Hearing Findings, Conclusions, and Decision August 24, 2005 Page 7 of 5 • The reduction in setback between our vehicle use area and the side property line doesn't affect the PDP's ability to minimize the adverse environmental impacts of development. • The reduction in setback between our vehicle use area and the side property line doesn't affect the PDP's ability to improve the design, quality and character of new development. • The reduction in setback between our vehicle use area and the side property line doesn't affect the PDP's ability to foster a more rational pattern of relationship among residential, business and industrial uses for the mutual benefit of all. • The reduction in setback between our vehicle use area and the side property line doesn't affect the PDP's ability to encourage the development of vacant properties within established areas. • The reduction in setback between our vehicle use area and the side property line doesn't affect the PDP's ability to ensure that development proposals are sensitive to the character of existing neighborhoods. • The reduction in setback between our vehicle use area and the side property line doesn't affect the PDP's ability to ensure that development proposals are sensitive to natural areas and features. Modification #2 3.2.1(E)(4) [Parking Lot Perimeter Landscaping] of the Fort Collins Land Use Code (LUC). requires that trees shall be provided at a ratio of one (1) tree per forty (40) lineal feet along a side lot line parking setback area. There is an existing 48" diameter stormsewer pipe that exists along the east property line of the project. As proposed, the stormsewer pipe is in the way of the location where the trees would need to be. All other "Parking Lot Perimeter Landscaping" requirements, such as screening, are being complied with. We hereby request modification to the standard to waive the requirement for trees to be located at a ratio of one (1) tree per forty (40) lineal feet along a side lot line parking setback area. As stated in 3.2.1(B) [Purpose] of the LUC, the purpose of the standard being modified is "to require preparation of landscape and tree protection plans that ensure significant canopy shading to reduce glare and heat build-up, contribute to visual quality and continuity within and between developments, provide screening and mitigation of potential conflicts Rigden Farm 11'' Filing, Brooklyn Park Rowhouses PDP Administrative Hearing Findings, Conclusions, and Decision August 24, 2005 Page 6 of 5 53 feet, 9 inch wide setback proposed on the Colony at Rigden Farm PDP, the notion of having less than 5 feet between the vehicle use area and the property line does not degrade the plan's ability to provide adequate safety, efficiency and convenience for vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians and transit, both within the development and to and from surrounding areas. The proposed layout of our vehicular use area will continue to advance the purposes of the Land Use Code as contained in Section 1.2.2 as follows: The proposed modification doesn't affect the PDP's ability to be consistent with the Land Use Code, City Plan and its adopted components, including but not limited to the Structure Plan, Principles and Policies and associated sub -area plans. Modifications, with proper justification, are entirely consistent with the Land Use Code and other adopted documents. • The reduction in setback between our vehicle use area and the side property line isn't related to innovations in land development and renewal. • The reduction in setback between our vehicle use area and the side property line allows a more efficient and economic use of the land in that less of the site must be devoted non -useable space. The reduction in setback between our vehicle use area and the side property line isn't related to the city's transportation infrastructure and other public facilities and services. • The reduction in setback between our vehicle use area and the side property line isn't doesn't affect the PDP's ability to facilitate and ensure the provision of adequate public facilities and services such as transportation (streets, bicycle routes, sidewalks and mass transit), water, wastewater, storm drainage, fire and emergency services, police, electricity, open space, recreation, and public parks. • The reduction in setback between our vehicle use area and the side property line doesn't affect the PDP's ability to avoid the inappropriate development of lands nor does it affect the PDP's ability to provide for adequate drainage and reduction of flood damage. • The reduction in setback between our vehicle use area and the side property line doesn't affect the PDP's ability to encourage patterns of land use which decrease trip length of automobile travel and encourage trip consolidation. • The reduction in setback between our vehicle use area and the side property line doesn't affect the PDP's ability to increase public access to mass transit, sidewalks, trails, bicycle routes and other alternative modes of transportation. • The reduction in setback between our vehicle use area and the side property line doesn't affect the PDP's ability to reduce energy consumption and demand. Rigden Farm 11t' Filing, Brooklyn Park Rowhouses PDP Administrative Hearing Findings, Conclusions, and Decision August 24, 2005 Page 5 of 5 The Applicants request for modifications of the aforementioned standards is as follows: Modification Request — Brooklyn Park Rowhouses P.D.P. This letter is intended to request a modification to two sections of the Fort Collins Land Use Code: (#1) section 3.2.2(J) [Setbacks] of the Fort Collins Land Use Code, and (42) section 3.2.1(E)(4) [Parking Lot Perimeter Landscaping] for the Brooklyn Park Rowhouses P.D.P. Modification #1 Section 3.2.2(J) [Setbacks] requires a minimum 5 foot setback at any point between a vehicular use area and a lot line. The east property line is approximately 270 feet long. Our proposed layout has a vehicular use area for 202 feet along said east property line that ranges in setback from 4 feet, 11 inches on the north to 4 feet, 4 inches on the south. We hereby request a modification to this standard to reduce the minimum setback between a vehicular use area and a lot line to 4 feet 4 inches. As stated in 3.2.2(A) [Purpose] of the LUC, the purpose of the standard being modified is "to ensure that the parking and circulation aspects of all developments are well designed with regard to safety, efficiency and convenience for vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians and transit, both within the development and to and from surrounding areas. Sidewalk or bikeway extensions off -site may be required based on needs created by the proposed development. This Section sets forth parking requirements in terms of numbers and dimensions of parking stalls, landscaping and shared parking. It also addresses the placement of drive-in facilities and loading zones." Additionally, Section 2.8.2(H) of the LUC specifies the criteria by which a modification request is evaluated. In accordance with this criteria, the modification is not detrimental to the public good, and the plan, as submitted, will 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. The proposed layout of our vehicular use area is not detrimental to the public good because the adjacent property (the Colony PDP currently under review) proposes a 53 feet, 9 inch wide setback area adjacent to the common property line. There is therefore more than adequate physical separation between our proposed vehicular use area and the nearest proposed building on the adjacent property. The proposed layout of our vehicular use area only diverges from the purpose of the standard being modified in a nominal, inconsequential way when considered from the perspective of the entire development plan because, when considered in context with the Rigden Farm 11'' Filing, Brooklyn Park Rowhouses PDP Administrative Hearing Findings, Conclusions, and Decision August 24, 2005 Page 4 of 5 the buildings, will all be internal to the site. The buildings will all have a 2- story appearance to Custer Drive and development to the south, with heights of 25' to 35'. Building Size, Height, Bulk, Mass, Scale. The proposed buildings will be similar in height and massing to the existing residential buildings in the area. The massing of the building fronts will be broken up with substantial wall plane variations, windows, and varying roofline directions and heights. Building materials. The proposed structures will consist of the following building materials: • The materials for the buildings will consist of brick siding, stucco (EIFS) siding, split -face masonry block, wood trim, and asphalt composition roof shingles. • The colors for the main bodies of the buildings are: red, brown, and tan brick brown, tan, beige, and cream stucco (EIFS) • The asphalt shingles will be grey -brown in color. 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 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. 4. Request for Modification of Standards The Rigden Farm 11t' Filing, Brooklyn Park Rowhouses, PDP does not satisfy the standard located in Section 3.2.1(E)(4) — Parking Lot Perimeter Landscaping, specifically Subsection 3.2.1(E)(4)(a), requiring 1 tree per 40 lineal feet along a side lot line parking setback area; and, Section 3.2.2(J) - Setbacks, requiring a minimum 5' landscaped setback area along a lot line adjacent to any vehicular use area. Rigden Farm 11"' Filing, Brooklyn Park Rowhouses PDP Administrative Hearing Findings, Conclusions, and Decision August 24, 2005 Page 3 of 5 None Written Comments: None. FACTS AND FINDINGS 1. Compatibility with Surrounding Uses: This proposal meets the compatibility criteria, adjacent to Medium Density Mixed Use Neighborhoods and Low Density Mixed -Use Neighborhoods and other surrounding uses as part of the overall Rigden Farm Subdivision. 2. Compliance with Division 4.5 of the LUC, Medium Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood District This proposal complies with the purpose of the MMN - District as it is an infill project that provides multi -family dwellings (two 10-plexes and two 11-plexes) on a property that is surrounded by developed properties and undeveloped properties. There is an existing church to the south and planned multi -family residential to the east. Properties to the north and west are undeveloped and unplanned. The proposal satisfies the applicable land use standards in the MMN — Medium Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood Zoning District as follows: Section 4.5(D)(1) Density. The Rigden Farm 11th Filing, Brooklyn Park Rowhouses, PDP development proposal is for 42 residential dwelling units on a property that is 1.73 acres (gross & net) in size. The gross & net residential density is 24.3 dwelling units per acre. The MMN District has a minimum density requirement of 12 dwelling units per net acre of residential land. The project is considered to be in compliance with this standard. 3. Compliance with Article 3 of the LUC — General Development Standards The proposed residential buildings will be similar in height (ranging from 25' to 35' to 42') to the existing residential buildings in areas in close proximity to this development. They will reflect the proportions and roofline articulation of those existing buildings. The roofs will be a combination of sloped and flat, with significant cornice features on the flat roofs. The actual living spaces will be on 2 stories, with a 2-car garage below each dwelling unit. The apparent 3-story elevations with garages, on the rear of Rigden Farm 11t' Filing, Brooklyn Park Rowhouses PDP Administrative Hearing Findings, Conclusions, and Decision August 24, 2005 Page 2 of 5 ZONING DISTRICTS: MMN — Medium Density Mixed Use Neighborhood District. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING: Evidence presented to the Hearing Officer established no controversy or facts to refute that the hearing was properly posted, legal notices mailed and notice published. The Hearing Officer, presiding pursuant to the Fort Collins Land Use Code, opened the hearing at approximately 4:00 p.m. on August 11, 2005 in Conference Room B and C, 281 N. College Avenue, 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 and the applicant's representatives to the City of Fort Collins; (3) a sign up sheet of persons attending the hearing; and (4) a tape recording of the public hearing. The LUC, the City's Comprehensive Plan (City Plan), and the formally promulgated policies of the City are all considered part of the evidence considered by the Hearing Officer. The following is a list of those who attended the meeting: From the City: Steve Olt, City Planner Susan Joy, Civil Engineer I From the Applicant: Scott Hearne Kevin Hearne Troy Jones Randall Pravencio Jeanette Cullup From the Public: City of Fort Collins Comn. _city Planning and Environment. jervices Current Planning CITY OF FORT COLLINS ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER TYPE I ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING DATE PROJECT NAME: CASE NUMBER: APPLICANT: OWNER: HEARING OFFICER: Planning PROJECT DESCRIPTION: August 11, 2005 Rigden Farm 11"' Filing, Brooklyn Park Rowhouses Project Development Plan, #56-98AD M. Torgerson Architects c/o Troy Jones/Mika[ Torgerson 223 North College Ave Fort Collins, CO 80524 Hearne Properties, LLC P.O. Box 273462 Fort Collins, CO 80527 Pete Wray Interim Director of Current This is a request for a total of forty-two (42) dwelling units on 1.73 acres. There will be four (4) buildings, each containing ten (10) or eleven (11) dwelling units, with each unit containing 2 or 3 bedrooms. The buildings will be 2 stories high, with varying roof heights ranging from 27' to 42'. This proposed project is located at the southeast comer of Custer Drive and Iowa Drive in the Rigden Farm mixed -use development. Proposed access to the development site is from Iowa Drive. The property is zoned MMN, Medium Density Mixed -Use Residential. SUMMARY OF HEARING OFFICER DECISION: Approval 281 North College Avenue • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6750 • FAX (970) 416-2020