HomeMy WebLinkAboutMODIFICATION OF STANDARDS FOR LAGRANGE MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING AT RIGDEN FARM - PDP - 56-98E - REPORTS - RECOMMENDATION/REPORT W/ATTACHMENTSsimplest surface drainage system with the most direct route worked the most
efficiently.
Locations The locations for the flow -line drainage is at all intersections between private
drives and public streets which have radius curb returns.
Discussion Granting this request would neither be detrimental to the public good nor impair
the intent and purposes of the Land Use Code.
a. The intent of the LUC is to promote pedestrian safety and vehicular
safety. Small radius curb returns utilized for drainage enhance this intent:
I. Radiused returns do not require any steel cover plates which can
be slippery when wet and deteriorate to become tripping hazards.
ii. Radiused returns as a means for local drainage are less likely to
collect debris that can turn into mosquito breeding sludge.
b. The "public good" would be served because:
I. Radiused curb returns are a simple, low -maintenance means for
drainage collection on a local basis.
il. Radiused returns as a means for local drainage are easy to
maintain with a street sweeper without special handwork that
would be required to clean out drainage channels In the right-of-
way.
Ili. Radiused returns as a means for local drainage are easy and user
friendly for a pedestrian to step over.
IV. There would be less long-term structural maintenance in the
public right-of-way for a simple surface system than would be
necessary for a system that was required to divert the stormwater
through a drainage collection pipe or structure to avoid draining
over a public sidewalk.
Basis for The request conforms with the requirements of LUC Standards for Granting
Approval Modifications 2.8.2 (H):
(1) the plan as submitted will advance or protect the public
interests... equally or better than would a plan which complies with the
standard for which a modification is requested.
a. Small radiused returns as a means of drainage are equal to the "New
Driveway Approach" from the standpoint that they:
NA
b. Small radiused returns as a means of drainage are better than the "New
Driveway Approach" from the standpoint that they:
1. Do not require additional structures to divert water from public
sidewalks.
ii. Allow for the pedestrian to step over rain water in the gutter.
Ili. More "user friendly" appearance and more attractive street scape.
IV. Shall require less right-of-way maintenance on a seasonal basis.
V. Shall require less right-of-way structural maintenance over time.
vi. Shall operate with more dependability on a daily basis.
vii. Have a proven track record we shouldn't abandon.
Hardship Without the above modifications and with strict enforcement of the staff
interpretation of the LUC, the city street cres shall inherit additional maintenance
headaches which they currently have shown are beyond their capacity at current
levels.
LaGrange Multi -Family Housing at Rigden Farm
Prepared by: Glaser Associates Architects
April 26, 2000
VI. REQUEST TO MODIFY SECTION 3.6.2 (L) PRIVATE DRIVES, (2)(f) of the LUC
Land Use Code 3.6.2, (L) Primate Drives (2)(f): If drainage from a private drive is channeled or
(LUC) directed to a public street, the water shall not be directed over the public
sidewalk.
Modification On the premise that request N" for small radiused curb returns is granted for
Request private drive intersections with public streets, the applicant wishes to utilize the
radius curb returns for transmitting storm water drainage in private drive gutter
past the public walk. The public walk would incorporate handicapped ramps.
Stormwater would be channeled past the walk in a flow line of the private drive
to the flow line of the public street.
Background Intersections of public streets to public streets are typically configured with
radiused curbs and sloped handicapped ramps (see D-1 Pedestrian ramp Detail
attached). The same configuration is also typical of public street to private street
intersections.
This configuration is the City standard for all intersections with radiused curb
returns. Radiused curb returns are typically used at intersections because they
promote a smooth, steady flow of traffic and they are efficient at channeling storm
water to the fiowline in the street.
The LUC requires that drainage from a private drive not be channeled over a
public sidewalk because the preceding requirement of the LUC to use a squared
Intersection with flared sides ("New Driveway Approach") lacks the capacity to
direct the water and there is no means for the pedestrian to "step over" the storm
water flow. The significant difference between the New Driveway design and
the private drives planned for LaGrange is the LaGrange drives would have
drainage gutters to collect and direct rainwater.
The Engineering department has stated that the " drainage difference" between
an intersection between a private drive and a public street vs. a public street
Intersecting with a public street is that the public street intersection has radiused
curb returns. The radius returns channel the stormwater and a pedestrian is able
to step over the stormwater from the curb.
If a private drive utilizes a radius return, albeit with a smaller radius, it stands to
reason that it would perform in the same manner as the public street intersection.
The Eastside Fort Collins Neighborhoods have numerous examples of radiused
curb returns at private drives, alleys, and street intersections. During the recent
rainstorms they were observed to function very well. The only observed failures
of the drainage system was at locations of drop structures (storm drain Inlets)
which easily clogged and dammed the stormwater with debris. The other
observed failure was at surface drainage structures with under -walk drain chases
which were Invariably clogged or showed signs of deterioration.
With regards to local collection: the conclusion of the observations is that the
I. Quiet traffic and promote pedestrian safety.
il. Do not cause any additional maintenance problems for the City
due to any lack of differentiation.
b. Small radiused returns are better than the "New Driveway Approach" from
the standpoint that they:
I. Move vehicular traffic more smoothly, thus clearing intersections
more efficiently.
ii. Allow for the pedestrian to step over rain water in the gutter.
Ill. More "user friendly" appearance and more attractive street scape.
Hardship Without the above modifications and with strict enforcement of the staff
Interpretation of the LUC, a potentially dangerous situation could be created
which will have negative repercussions on the entire Rigden Farm project.
Locations See the attached plan for locations of the modification for small radiused returns:
Intersection
Width of Parkway
Radius of Curbed Return
A
8 feet
8 feet
B
8 feet
8 feet
C
8 feet
8 feet
D
6 feet
6 feet
E
6 feet
6 feet
F
8 feet
8 feet
G
6 feet
6 feet
H
6 feet
6 feet
City P la n T-6.2 Intersection Improvements. Traffic calming and sight distance
Principles & improvements at intersections should be developed where appropriate to enhance
Policies the safety of street crossings... Curb radii should be minimized to reduce the
speed of right turning vehicles and reduce the distance for the pedestrian to
cross the street.
Private drives allow for a greater density than can be achieved with typical street
cross -sections. Private drives supplement public streets. By enabling greater
densities, private drives enhance a stated goal of City plan.
Discussion Granting this request would neither be detrimental to the public good nor impair
the intent and purposes of the Land Use Code.
a. The intent of the LUC is to promote pedestrian safety and vehicular
safety. Small radius curb returns enhance this intent:
I. It is the opinion of the Traffic Department that radius returns do
not impair pedestrian safety and improve vehicular safety.
It. Numerous examples of small radius returns can be found on the
Eastside Neighborhoods of Fort Collins. The streets have a very
user friendly appearance and the radiused returns work well.
Ill. It is a stated policy of the City Plan to have small radius returns.
IV. Numerous multi -family projects currently being built and built in
the last five years have radiused returns that appear to respect
the pedestrian and service the vehicular traffic.
b. The "public good" would be to have:
I. Entrances that promoted a smooth flow of traffic while
maintaining a slow rate of speed.
H. Drive entrances which are able to clear the traffic safely from the
contributing street.
Ili Radiused returns that allow pedestrians the capability to 'step
over" water channeled in the gutters.
IV. Attractive street scape which cut down on the amount of hard
surface area.
B a s i s f o r The request conforms with the requirements of LUC Standards for Granting
Approval Modifications 2.8.2 (H):
(1) the plan as submitted will advance or protect the public
interests... equally or better than would a plan which complies with the
standard for which a modification is requested.
a. Small radiused returns are equal to the "New Driveway Approach" from
the standpoint that they:
LaGrange Multi -Family Housing at Rigden Farm
Prepared by: Glaser Associates Architects
April 26, 2000
V. REQUEST TO MODIFY SECTION 3.6.2 (L) PRIVATE DRIVES, (2)(e) of the LUC
Land Use Code 3.6.2, (L) Private Drives (2)(e): The connection of a private drive with a public
(LUC) street shall be made with a driveway cut using a 'New Driveway Approach" in
accordance with city street standards.
Modification To utilize radlused curb returns at all private drive entrances provided that the
Request radius shall not exceed the width of the parkway at the entrance location and that
sidewalks shall incorporate handicapped ramps. Concrete pans shall extend to
the back side of the sidewalk and flow lines shall be In line with the gutters.
Background Intersections of public streets to public streets are typically configured with
radlused curbs and sloped handicapped ramps (see D-1 Pedestrian ramp Detail
attached). The same configuration Is also typical of public street to private street
Intersections.
The LUC requires that intersections between private drives and public streets be
configured with a squared -off "New Driveway Approach"(see D-15 attached). City
Engineering staff gave the following reasons:
a. Quiet traffic with an Intersection that requires a slower speed to
maneuver; le. pedestrian safety.
b. Differentiate between a public street that is the maintenance responsibility
of the City and a private drive that is the responsibility of a home owners'
association.
Contrary observations are that the 'New Driveway Approach' will slow traffic too
much and could cause accidents by the rear -end of cars hanging out in traffic
while trying to negotiate a turn. A representative of traffic engineering has stated
that there Is no way to quantify a factor of safety utilizing a squared drive Inlet
and that a radlused curb return was preferable in most cases especially where
distances are sufficient for clear visibility (as they are in the LaGrange project.)
The squared intersection is appropriate for a private or semi -private drive.
Furthermore, the entrance configuration that is utilized for the LaGrange project
shall set a precedence for other projects in Rigden Farm and collectively, the
danger caused by squared drive inlets would compound.
Regarding the desire to differentiate between public streets and private drives: a
representative of the Streets department stated that in twenty years he knew of
only seven requests by HOA groups for the City to maintain private drives. Private
drives are easily determined on a map and the HOA Is simply informed that the
private drive Is their responsibility. No mistakes have been made.
Another benefit of radiused curb returns, as pointed out by the City engineering
department, the curb will channel storm water and it Is a simple maneuver for the
pedestrian to step over.
DesMolnes.
b. The "public good" would be benefitted by granting the modification for the
following reasons:
i. The intersections would look much better; they would have more
symmetry. The Intersection designs would be enhanced with
landscaping.
8 a s i s f o r The request conforms with the first of the three requirements of the LUC
Approval Standards for Granting Modifications 2.8.2 (H):
(1) the plan as submitted will advance or protect the public
interests... equally or better than would a plan which complies with the
standard for which a modification Is requested.
a. Parking could be counted and would be utilized on Rockford as a private
drive. The same amount of parking would be available on Rockford as a
public street. Since Rockford would function better and look better as a
public street, it would be to everyone's advantage to make Rockford a
public street.
Hardship Without the above modifications and with strict enforcement of the
interpretation of the LUC, pedestrian safety would be Jeopardized.
LaGrange Multi -Family Housing at Rigden Farm
Prepared by: Glaser Associates Architects
April 26, 2000
IV. REQUEST TO MODIFY SECTION 3.2.2 (K)(1)(a) RESIDENTIAL AND
INSTITUTIONAL PARKING REQUIREMENTS of the LUC
Land Use Code 3.2.2(K)(1)(a) Residential and Institutional Parking Requirements for
(LUC) Attached Dwellings: Table
Two Bedroom 1.75 parking spaces per Dwelling Unit
Three Bedroom 2.00 parking spaces per Dwelling Unit
Modification Based on the above LUC parking standards, the LaGrange project would be
Request required to have 176 parking spaces If 50% of the type "B" units utilized the
ground floor with a third bedroom and 60% of the units utilized the ground floor
with a den. This modification is to reduce the total required 176 parking spaces
by ten parking spaces for a total of 166 parking spaces.
Background DesMoines Drive and Rockford Drive were originally designed as private streets.
Parking can be counted toward parking requirements on private streets and
private drives but not on public streets even though parking may still be
permitted.
The loss of parking counts on DesMoines was mitigated with the addition of a
twelve car parking lot plus other parking modifications. Parking on Rockford
could still be counted If Rockford were to be configured as a private drive. As a
private drive, the configuration of the intersections of Rockford with DesMoines
or Limon would radically change - but, not for the best.
As a public street, Rockford Drive would have full, extended radiused curb returns
at both ends that would enhance pedestrian safety. This configuration would echo
the other public -to -public Intersections In the development. However, there would
be a loss of twelve parking spaces that otherwise could have been counted.
Requesting the ability to count parking on a public street would be less hopeful
than requesting a reduction in the total number of parking spaces.
C i t y P l an T-6.2 Intersection Improvements. Traffic calming and sight distance
Principles & improvements at Intersections should be developed where appropriate to enhance
Policies the safety of street crossings...
AN-3.3 Street and Outdoor Spaces. Where a pattern of streets and outdoor
spaces is already established, a development plan will continue and extend the
pattern.
Discussion Granting this request would neither be detrimental to the public good nor impair
the intent and purposes of the Land Use Code.
a. The intent of the LUC is to promote public safety and the ability for the
City to maintain and improvements in public right-of-ways and easements.
I. Rockford Drive as a public street would increase pedestrian
safety because of its extended curb returns.
li. Rockford in a private drive configuration would not have any
traffic calming benefits; traffic would probably speed through
B a s i s f o r The request conforms with the first and third requirements of LUC Standards for
Approval Granting Modifications 2.8.2 (H):
(1) the plan as submitted will advance or protect the public
interests... equally or better than would a plan which complies with the
standard for which a modification is requested.
a. Because landscaping shall be enhanced in the parkway, and because
there will be a brick masonry wall on 2 1 /2 sides, the requirement for a
ten foot setback from the right-of-way is not necessary. There shall be
equal or more screening as designed.
b. The brick wall is a full twelve feet back from the curb; the ten foot from
right-of-way requirement is a duplication of the parkway.
C. The brick wall is not a requirement; it shall be an Immediate visual barrier
that shall aesthetically tie the parking lot to the dwelling units.
(3) by reason of exceptional physical conditions or other extraordinary and
exceptional situations, unique to such property...
a. The drainageway was established in the Rigden Farm First Filing.
b. The plan as submitted has been developed with the continuation of
DesMoines Drive and Rockford Drive as "pre-existing conditions° in
addition to the perimeter streets in support of the Comprehensive Plan
policies. These constraints along with the drainageway have established
pre-existing site limitations which have directly effected the design and
layout of the parking lot.
Hardship Without the above modification and with strict enforcement of the LUC, seven
parking spaces would be lost. (See drawing)
LaGrange Mufti -Family Housing at Rigden Farm
Prepared by: Glaser Associates Architects
April 26, 2000
III. REQUEST TO MODIFY SECTION 3.2.2 (D) ACCESS CIRCULATION AND
PARKING, (J) Setbacks of the LUC (as they apply to parking lots)
Land Use Code 3.2.2 Access Circulation and Parking, (J) Setbacks: (table) Minimum average
(LUC) of entire landscaped setback area (feet) along a non -arterial street: 10 feet.
3.2.1 Landscaping and Tree Protection, (E) Landscape Standards, (4)
Parking Lot Perimeter Landscaping: (a) Perimeter landscaping along a street
may be located in and should be integrated with the streetscape in the street
right-of-way.
(b) Screening. Parking lots with six (6) or more spaces shall be screened from
adjacent uses and from the street. Screening from residential uses shall consist
of a fence or wall six (6) feet in height in combination with plant material and of
sufficient opacity to block at least seventy -five (75) percent of light from vehicle
headlights.
Modification To reduce the required ten foot setback of parking lots along nonarterial streets
Request to eighteen inches plus landscape enhancement of the parkway.
Background Four dwelling units have been deleted from the initial plan submitted for PDP to
accommodate a twelve car parking lot to service guest parking and owner over-
flow parking.
The parking lot would have 36" high masonry walls on the north side, east side,
and one-half of the west side. The masonry would blend and tie the parking to the
design of the multi -family housing. The north side shall have enhanced
landscaping in the parkway and in the eighteen inch wide planter area along the
brick wall, the east side shall have a hedge (in addition to the 36" wall) which
shall grow to a height of 6'. The hedge shalt continue as a screen on the south
side and the remaining one-half of the west side.
Streets & Alleys Tables & Figures D. No parking or paving [shall be] allowed in the area between
Design Criteria the property line and the back of curb; this area may be landscaped.
Discussion Granting this request would neither be detrimental to the public good nor impair
the intent and purposes of the Land Use Code.
a. The intent of the LUC is to promote public safety and the ability for the
City to maintain and operate utilities and other improvements in public
right-of-ways and easements.
1. The parking lot is set back from the sidewalk eighteen inches so
that pedestrians are not walking directly next to the wall.
ii. The wall meets all requirements for Fences and Walls as defined
in Section 3.8.11 of the LUC.
b. The'public good" would be benefitted by granting the modification for the
following reasons:
1. Landscaping is enhanced In the parkway.
ii. The scale and character of the parking lot shall fit nicely into the
neighborhood. Brick masonry walls shall blend in with the brick
masonry on the units.
Comprehensive Plan for developing a major pedestrian spine.
b. The configuration of the units contiguous to the drainageway provide
variety and character which will have a positive benefit of the urban
environment of the drainageway.
(3) by reason of exceptional physical conditions or other extraordinary and
exceptional situations, unique to such property...
a. The drainageway was established in the Rigden Farm First Filing.
b. The plan as submitted has been developed with the continuation of
DesMoines Drive and Rockford Drive as "pre-existing conditions" in
addition to the perimeter streets in support of the Comprehensive Plan
policies. These constraints along with the drainageway have established
pre-existing site limitations which have directly effected the design and
layout of the dwelling units.
C. In most cases the Infractions of the 15 foot setback extending over the
property line is due to the angularity of the drainageway and the dwelling
units in juxtaposition to the drainageway causing °corners of the setback"
to be clipped.
Hardship Without the above modifications and with strict enforcement of the staff
Interpretation of the LUC, numerous housing units would be lost and the density
would drop below the ODP requirement of 10 DU/ acre.
City Plan LMN-2.5 Neighborhood Center Access. Access for pedestrians and bicyclists
Principles & should be a priority.
Policies LMN-2.9 Outdoor Spaces. Small neighborhood parks, squares and other
common outdoor spaces will be included within new neighborhoods. These
spaces should be attractive settings, highly visible and easily observed from
public streets.
AN-4.2 Multiple -Family Building Variation. Multiple -building projects should
offer variation among individual buildings ... [which] should be achieved by ... facade
treatment, roof forms, entrance features...
MMN-2.6 Block Standards.... It is recognized that there may be ways to create
alternative unifying system of public spaces, such as by defining blocks with
major walkway spines in lieu of a street.
Discussion Granting this request would neither be detrimental to the public good nor impair
the Intent and purposes of the Land Use Code.
a. The intent of the LUC is to promote public safety and the ability for the
City to maintain and operate utilities and other improvements in public
right-of-ways and easements.
I. There are no buildings in the drainageway and therefore the need
for setbacks is diminished.
ii. Stormwater is the only utility easement in the drainageway; the
modification will not compromise the stormwater.
iii. In all cases, the top -of -foundation elevation of all buildings
contiguous to the drainageway are above the freeboard elevation
by at least one foot.
b. The "public good" would be benefitted by granting the modification for the
following reasons:
I. Projections Into the right-of-way create variety and diversity while
maintaining a compact design.
ii. In many cases only the porches project into the right-of-way.
iii. The projections of covered porches will give the multi -family
housing amenities typicallyassociatedwith single-family detached
houses.
iv. The configuration of the housing units defining the drainageway
shall create a cohesive public space.
B a s i s f o r The request conforms with all three requirements of LUC Standards for
Approval Granting Modifications 2.8.2 (H):
(i) the plan as submitted will advance or protect the public
Interests... equally or better than would a plan which complies with the
standard for which a modification is requested.
a. The orientation and proximity of the units contiguous to the drainageway
help to define the drainageway. Fifteen foot setbacks are not necessary.
b. If the drainageway had been defined as an easement (rather than a
parcel), a request to modify the setbacks would not be necessary and the
layout would be no different from the proposed plan.
(2) the granting of a modification from the strict application of any
standard would result in a substantial benefit to the city by reason ... [of
meeting a] need specifically and expressly defined and described In the
city's Comprehensive Plan, adopted policy, ordinance or resolution...
a. The plan as submitted supports the stated principles and policies of the
LaGrange Multi -Family Housing at Rigden Farm
Prepared by: Glaser Associates Architects
April 26, 2000
II. REQUEST TO MODIFY SECTION 3.5.2 (D) RESIDENTIAL BUILDING SETBACKS
(2) Setback from Nonarterial Streets of the LUC (as they apply to drainageways &
greenbelts)
Land Use Code 3.5.2(D)(2) Setback from Nonarterial Streets.Minimum setback of every
(LUC) residential... from any public street right-of-way ... shall be fifteen (15) feet; except
that in any zone district other than the R-L, U-E and L-M-N Districts, a minimum
front yard setback of seven (7) feet shall be permitted for attached housing with
rear vehicle access and parking.
5.1.2 Definitions, Street: shall mean a public way (whether publicly or privately
owned) used or intended to be used for carrying vehicular, bicycle and/or
pedestrian traffic and shall Include the entire area within the public right-of-way
and/or public access easement.
Modification To reduce the required fifteen foot setback of multi -family dwelling units in the
Request LMN District.
Background The subject parcel is zoned LMN which the LUC designates to have a density of
5 DU/acre. The Rigden Farm ODP requires the subject parcel to have a density
of more than 10 DU/acre. This density is similar to the MMN District requirement
of 12 DU/acre.
LMN Districts are required to have a 15 foot setback from non -arterial streets.
MMN Districts are permitted to have only a 7' setback from non -arterial streets.
A narrower setback is conducive to achieving the required density.
This request is necessitated by a legal requirement between by the Rigden LLC
to the LaGrange LLC:
1. The subject property has a drainageway designated to extend through the
property. The drainageway shall also be a green -belt with a pedestrian/
bike -path.
2. Ownership of the drainageway shall eventually be transferred to the
Rigden HOA, consequently it has been described with a property line
rather than an easement.
3. Since contiguous units front onto the drainageway, the property line
technically requires setback requirements of fifteen feet.
Locations Fifteen (15) foot setbacks have been maintained in the drainageway except for
the following exceptions. Locations for the modification to the setback
requirements include:
lot U =1 distance to porch distance to building
10 2,4,5,6 NA 9 feet
14 2 NA 9 feet
15 2,4,5,6 NA 7 feet
16 2,3,4,5,6 NA 8 feet
18 1,2,3,4 4 to 9 feet 8 to 9 feet
21 1,2,3,4,5,6 6 to 16 feet + 9 to 15 feet +
Therefore, the proposed design is "equal or better than.'
(2) the granting of a modification from the strict application of any
standard would result In a substantial benefit to the city by reason ... [of
meeting a) need specifically and expressly defined and described in the
city's Comprehensive Plan, adopted policy, ordinance or resolution...
a. The plan as submitted supports the stated principles and policies of the
Comprehensive Plan for creating neighborhood environments in multi-
family housing. The Comprehensive Plan encourages the construction of
units closer to the street with variation in the facade.
(3) by reason of exceptional physical conditions or other extraordinary and
exceptional situations, unique to such property...
a. The plan as submitted has been developed with the continuation of
DesMoines Drive and Rockford Drive as "pre-existing conditions° in
addition to the perimeter streets and the drainageway. The
Comprehensive Plan encourages that contiguous developments have
continuity of streets and pedestrian ways. All of these elements have
created strong pre-existing site limitations which do not work well for
prescribed setbacks In all cases.
Consequently, the depths of lots have been strongly influenced by the
pre-existing conditions which has forced some set -backs to be reduced.
Hardship Without the above modifications and with strict enforcement of the staff
interpretation of the LUC, numerous housing units would be lost and the density
would drop below the ODP requirement of 10 DU/ acre.
Locations Locations for the modification to the setback requirements include:
j41
units
distance to Dorch distance
to building
1
2,3,4,5
13 feet
15 feet
3
2,3
13 feet
15 feet
4
1,2,3
13 feet
15 feet
5
2,3,4
13 feet
15 feet
7
1,2,3,4
13 feet
15 feet
8
2,3,4
13 feet
15 feet
9
1,2,3
13 feet
15 feet
11
2,3,4
11 feet
11 feet
12
2,3,4,5
9 feet
11 feet
17
3
11 feet
16 feet
19
1
10 feet
17 feet
City Plan AN-3.3 Street and Outdoor Spaces. Where a pattern of streets and outdoor
Principles & spaces is already established, a development plan will continue and extend the
Policies pattern.
AN-4.1 Multiple -Family Housing Characteristics. All Multiple -family buildings
should be designed to reflect... amenities typically associated with single-family
detached houses ... [and] include orientation of the front door to a neighborhood
sidewalk and street, individual identity, private outdoor space...
AN-4.2 Multiple -Family Building Variation. Multiple -building projects should
offer variation among individual buildings ... [which I should be achieved by ... facade
treatment, roof forms, entrance features...
MMN-2.4 Block Pattern. A unifying pattern of streets and blocks, with buildings
fronting the streets... similar to detached houses, by facing buildings onto
attractive neighborhood streets and sidewalks that are part of the community
network.
Discussion Granting this request would neither be detrimental to the public good nor Impair
the intent and purposes of the Land Use Code.
a. The intent of the LUC is to promote public safety and the ability for the
City to maintain and operate utilities and other improvements in public
right-of-ways and easements.
I. The LUC clearly allows for the design as presented.
ii. The design does not infringe on any 9 foot utility easement.
b. The "public good" would be benefitted by granting the modification for the
following reasons:
I. Projections into the right-of-way create variety and diversity while
maintaining a compact design.
ii. In many cases only the porches project into the right-of-way.
iii. The projections of covered porches will give the multi -family
housing amenities typically assoclatedwith single-family detached
houses.
B a s f s f o r The request conforms with all three requirements of the LUC Standards for
Approval Granting Modifications 2.6.2 (H):
(1) the plan as submitted will advance or protect the public
interests... equally or better than would a plan which complies with the
standard for which a modification is requested.
a. It is the applicant's opinion and interpretation of the LUC that the covered
porch projections into right-of-ways Is the stated intent of the LUC.
LaGrange Mufti -Family Housing at Rigden Farm
Prepared by: Glaser Associates Architects
April 26, 2000
1. REQUEST TO MODIFY SECTION 3.5.2 (D) RESIDENTIAL BUILDING SETBACKS
(2) Setback from Nonarterial Streets of the LUC
Land Use Code 3.5.2(D)(2) Setback from Nonarterial Streets.Minimum setback of every
(LUC) residential... from any public street right-of-way ... shall be fifteen (15) feet; except
that in any zone district other than the R-L, U-E and L-M-N Districts, a minimum
front yard setback of seven (7) feet shall be permitted for attached housing with
rear vehicle access and parking.
3.8.19 Setback Regulations, (A)(7) Features Allowed Within Setbacks: open
outside stairways, entrance hoods, terraces, canopies and balconies that don not
project more than five (5) feet into a required front or rear setback..., provided
they do not encroach on public easements;
Modification To reduce the required fifteen foot setback of multi -family dwelling units in the
Request LMN District, but not project into the required nine foot utility easement.
Background The subject parcel is zoned LMN which the LUC designates to have a density of
5 DU/acre. The Rigden Farm ODP requires the subject parcel to have a density
of more than 10 DU/acre. This density is similar to the MMN District requirement
of 12 DU/acre.
LMN Districts are required to have a 15 foot setback from non -arterial streets.
MMN Districts are permitted to have only a 7' setback from non -arterial streets.
A narrower setback is conducive to achieving the required density.
Two conditions have necessitated this request:
1. The City staff interpretation of 3.8.19,(A)(7) allows for a cantilevered
canopy and a concrete porch with stairs. However, the staff has
disallowed porches with structural columns which support the canopy.
The proposed design interprets the LUC to allow structures to protrude
into setbacks.
In many cases fifteen (15) foot setbacks have been maintained except in
limited areas of the porches which shall project only 2 feet into the
setback but will not project into the 9 foot utility easement, thus creating
more visual interest without compromising the utility requirements. The
plan has been reviewed and accepted by all City utilities and Public
Service.
2. DesMoines Drive was originally designed as private street which would
not require a right-of-way. Hence the required setbacks could be
achieved. However the City Engineering Department requires DesMoines
to be a public street because it is a continuation of DesMoines Drive east
of Rigden Parkway and because it Is a through street. Consequently the
proposed plan no longer has the required setback depths.
Control
joint
msition
cl
c
J
P
/L--Driveway
width A
Slope = 1/411 1 —F f
per ft.
Min.
EXPANSION xW
Slope=l"per ft.
M aximum —
Warped
section
Warped
section
V
PERSPECTIVE VIEW
`o n�
Fl-
V O III
m 3 0;• -
PTxrty Line
(Concrete Limit)
NOTE: EXPANSION JO(NT TO BE
PROVIDED AT BACK OF
WALK.
EXPANSION J0jNT Control
joint
4� .
WALK
Transition
NOTE
Rehan! Drm Appwchn Stan
M&d) ExWmg CmdtliocmL
EXPANSION JOINT � ". � -..� .. �. � ; ; -. a -•- - {
SECTION A -A
N.T.S.
DRIVEWAY WIDTH
Minimum 10 Ft Mult. family
18 2 Family Res., Max. 25 Ft.
Res-, Max. 20 FL Business, Max. 35 Ft.
NEW DRIVEWAY APPROACH DETAILS
VERTICAL CURB AND GUTTER
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
ENGINEERING DIVISION
REVISED 2-84
REVISED 11-85
REVISED 4 - 86
D-15
m
U
U)
F-
Ld
L1J
F-
OF GUTTER
STREETS WITH HIGHBACK CURB
RAMP WnH PARTIALLY COLORED CONCF
SECTION A -A
N.T.S.
NOTE,
1. RA1p UtCNC %%ALL EE COKKM C LMM 1QN 4 LBS/ SACK DALES No. 1117 MI RID) PCI M
OR A1FI01ED MX MM ODR Z4W OR Appr& D EM SHALL Sw11 BE MRn a ALL
C01= COtIMM SUI ACM
2 CO[ORED PORION CF DE IWP S WL BE POUFD SEPARAiELT AND DMVMM WM )aVZ N1
CON W W N A NNGIIAI W 6 MAUW SPACED. 18 10 µ OETOMD Bins We a ICES
UNKIL
S 7ANS M AFE W EE SCARED F47ffi a=ja TO i P& MWOI W N SO: 1/4 00 MP Man
JOPCS 6 lgES CN CYO AS S M
4. NO MMS ARE 111M N DE RMX Sc la 110E CURB OR *RAW JCNi YAT BE TOOIFD 10
aW DEW 6 000 n= RN 1NE AS S M
S. WMV MNCIM DIOOESS IS 6 NMI
6. JOM• PAi1ESM TO BE AMMia C TO 10ERSECTON QM DEW (OM 0-16 " D-17) OR AS
DE UMB BT THE CO1' O CNa
7. 51 M V= FlW Rat 5 RE Lwg On DGK SUEACE OF RAP No 7IWSEL C
6. A 6 10 1'DE CUM RW BE POIAED AT DE BILK OF THE RAID AS %M F. REMM. F CURB 5
USED O %U EWCH THE CURB *0 CU 0 SIt1E OF AUMU CURB AND CU UL
PEDESTRIAN RAMP DETAIL FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION STA"ARD
AND ALTERATIONS D-1
CiTY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO TLAEPP
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT ROVED2-99
DETACHED
WALK
LANDSCAPED
PARKWAY
FLOWLINE
CROSS SLOPE
6' TRANSITION 6' TRANSITION
r
r.
--------- PROPERTY LINE
---- STREET R.O.W. ----- -- -------------
RAMP SLOPE=
1" PER FOOT RAMP SLOPE=
1" PER FOOT
/ I
� 1
RADIUS EQUAL TO
PARKWAY WIDTH
if PKIvATf— DR►ve [NTEA5ELTNofj
MODIFICATION ?e:R5?scrl ve
Cf*161T H)
DETACHED
WALK
LANDSCAPED
PARKWAY
100
a■ram � � ■ ■■■ ■a MAW
r
m
AQ�CIVPCfE l7i►�E IrITERSEG?IO►J �;
MOD I F I CATION
scnul 1'= ioo/ -o-
L, NORTH
b f- LANDSCAPED AREA -
PARKING tOT SETBACK r'
`. N
14S
�RFVOTE--BR-1VE-
1
I1
?4KKIWh LOT SET9ACK"
mewllrwj (QXL
MODIFICATION
SCALEt 1 30'-0"
Q 17
NORTH
Q
-DES- MAIN ES- DR- IN
PRIVATE DRIVE
gkftt+c' DT Sf,Tmck
MODIFICATION A5 p�oPoS�D
(Exh�e►T ���
SCALEa 1"= 20'-0"
0 LO 20 40
0 4
3
t8fi-4 2
i
4
3
LOT - 5--
2
i
-DRI-Vf ----
��—tom T��--
ROCKFORD DRIVE AS PUBLIC STREET
MODIFICATION # Rmf;oPv R5 pRrwATE-
pRlvE'
KALEi 1'= 50'-0-Immommi
(tXHig�T i
o n 30 too
{q FH
PRIVATE DRIVE ALTERNATIVE
i
NORTH
3�
i
or
LOT 14'
�z
`\ i � Q 4♦
y /�\
'3
LOT 21 `
h
r—
ra
ra
7
n 51 pe AND Yw.r -YEi Al L
��ach��iT D)
Fil
TT/-
2'
All AT LOTS 11 & 12
4 A
LANDSCAPED
2' PARKWAY
19, i3f
SETBACK 1 TYPICAL I
PORCH
LL
LLI
Ju=
a;
- - - - - - -.-------
MOD I F I CATION
�.'&Aksvf c)
SCALE- I"= 20'-0"
aNORTH
M--Nw-----------
Ili
■
---------DES-WINES--BRIVE-mwrc-x, wc- ---
�1l
°PICoPoS�D SATE P��N"
MODIFICATION CM151-i A) :e
SCALE& 1-= 100'-0"
m 0 30 is
NORTH
T
f%n AVE
MMN
NC
LMN
MMN
0
W
Z
W
L N
m
MMN
EWART CASE PAR
FORT COLLINS SR HIGH
I�
j,
VICINITY MAP
02/11/00
#56-98D LaGrange Multi -Family Housing
at Rigden Farm - PDP -Type 1 (LUC)
1"= 600'
Modification of Standards for LaGrange Multi -family Housing at Rigden Farm, File #56-98E
May 18, 2000 P&Z Meeting
Page 10
which complies with the standard for which a modification is requested because there
will physically be the same number of parking spaces available in the proposed plan as
would be available in a plan that satisfies the code.
L. Granting the modification #4 will advance or protect the public interests and purposes
of the standard for which the modification is requested equally well as would a plan
which complies with the standard for which a modification is requested because safety,
efficiency, and convenience to the users of the parking lot, street, and street sidewalk
are unaffected by the differences in the proposed plan and the plan that satisfies the
code.
M. Granting the modification #5 will advance or protect the public interests and purposes
of the standard for which the modification is requested better than would a plan which
complies with the standard for which a modification is requested because the proposed
visual treatment of private drive to public street intersections arguably looks better than
the required driveway cut.
6. RECOMMENDATION:
A. Staff recommends approval of the modification requests to sections 3.5.2(D)(2),
3.5.2(D)(3), 3.2.2(K)(1)(a), 3.2.2(J) [modification requests #1 through #4], of the Land
Use Code.
B. Staff recommends approval of the modification request to section 3.6.2(L)(2)(e)
[modification request #5] subject to the following conditions:
(1)The sidewalk slopes at the private drive intersections are able to meet all ADA
requirements, and
(2)The sidewalk ramps are redesigned to fit completely within the street right-of-
way.
Modification of Standards for LaGrange Multi -family Housing at Rigden Farm, File #56-98E
May 18, 2000 P&Z Meeting
Page 9
B. Granting the requested modifications #1 & #2 would not be detrimental to the public
good because the proposed design does not adversely affect access or use of any
utility easements.
C. Granting the requested modification #3 would not be detrimental to the public good
because the physical arrangement of parking spaces provided is the same for the
proposed plan as it is for a plan that satisfies the code.
D. Granting the requested modification #5 would not be detrimental to the public good
because there is virtually no functional difference between the a raised curb
intersection of a private drive and a driveway cut intersection of a private drive.
E. Granting the requested modifications #1 & #2 would not impair the intent and purposes
of the Land Use Code because the low density character that a 15 foot setback would
help to provide is not needed (or desired) in higher density development such as this
site.
F. Granting the requested modification #3 would not impair the intent and purposes of the
Land Use Code because the physical arrangement of parking spaces provided is the
same for the proposed plan as it is for a plan that satisfies the code.
G. Granting the requested modification #4 would not impair the intent and purposes of the
Land Use Code because a decorative wall and enhanced landscaping will provide the
screening and buffering that the 10 foot parking lot setback was intended to provide.
H. Granting the requested modification #5 would not impair the intent and purposes of the
Land Use Code because the proposed visual treatment of private drive to public street
intersections arguably looks better than the required driveway cut.
Granting the modifications #1 & will advance or protect the public interests and
purposes of the standard for which the modification is requested better than would a
plan which complies with the standard for which a modification is requested because a
variety of setback distances promotes variety and visual interest in this residential
development.
J. Granting the modifications #2 & will advance or protect the public interests and
purposes of the standard for which the modification is requested equally well as would
a plan which complies with the standard for which a modification is requested because
the facades facing the greenbelt have the primary entrances to these dwelling units,
and they face four different directions, giving variety and visual interest to the proposed
design.
K. Granting the modification #3 will advance or protect the public interests and purposes
of the standard for which the modification is requested equally well as would a plan
Modification of Standards for LaGrange Multi -family Housing at Rigden Farm, File #56-98E
May 18, 2000 P&Z Meeting
Page 8
surrounding areas." Safety, efficiency, and convenience to the users of the parking lot,
street, and street sidewalk is unaffected by the differences in the proposed plan and the
plan that satisfies the code.
(E) Modification Request #5 — Section 3.6.2 (L)(2)(e) requires that a connection of a
private drive with a public street shall be made with a driveway cut using "New
Driveway Approach" in accordance with city standards.
The applicant proposes to connect the private drives to public streets using a raised curb
intersection rather than a driveway cut.
Staff finds that the granting of modification request #5 would not be detrimental to the
public good because there is virtually no functional difference between the two intersection
types. The differences between the intersection types are primarily visual.
Staff finds that the granting of modification request #5 does not impair the intent and
purposes of the Land Use Code. The intent behind the requirement is to visually establish
a uniform application of private drive intersections with public streets throughout the city.
The applicant has proposed to the Engineering Department to reconsider this intent
because the raised curbs look better. The Rigden Farm developers have indicated that
this may be a reoccurring modification request throughout the Rigden Farm development
due to the substantial number of private drive intersections that will be occurring along
Custer Drive (a collector) in future phases. The Engineering Department has agreed to
begin discussions to consider changing this requirement in future code change, and does
support this modification request in this instance. Because the visual treatment of private
drive to public street intersections is being reconsidered, and because one of the designs
being considered is consistent with what the applicant proposes, staff feels that the
proposed plan addresses the purpose of the standard equally well as the plan which
satisfies the code.
The Engineering Department would, however, like to place two conditions on modification
#5 as follows:
(1) The sidewalk slopes at the private drive intersections are able to meet all ADA
requirements, and
(2) The sidewalk ramps are redesigned to fit completely within the street right-of-
way.
5. FINDINGS OF FACT/CONCLUSION:
A. The requested Modification of Standards for La Grange Multifamily at Rigden Farm, file
#56-98E is subject to review by the Planning and Zoning Board.
Modification of Standards for LaGrange Multi -family Housing at Rigden Farm, File #56-98E
May 18, 2000 P&Z Meeting
Page 7
Staff finds that the granting of modification request #3 does not impair the intent and
purposes of the Land Use Code. The intent of the minimum residential parking
requirements is to provide adequate parking to serve the needs of the residential units
being served. Because there will physically be the same number of parking spaces
available in the proposed plan as would be available in the plan that satisfies the code, and
because the traffic counts would most likely never preclude parallel parking being allowed
on Rockford Drive, staff feels that the intent and purposes of the Land Use Code are not
being impaired with the applicants proposed plan.
Staff finds that the proposed plan reflecting modification request #3 will advance and
protect the purposes of the standard for which the modification is being requested equally
well as a plan that complies with the standard. The purpose for this section of the LUC as
described in Section 3.2.2(A) 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." Because the differences between the proposed plan and the plan
satisfying the code are of a nature that do not affect safety, efficiency or convenience for
the users of the parallel parking spaces along Rockford Drive, staff feels that the proposed
plan advances the purpose of the standard equally well as a plan that satisfies the code.
(D) Modification Request #4 — Section 3.2.2 (J) requires that vehicular areas containing 6
or more parking spaces shall be set back a minimum average of 10 feet from any non -
arterial public street.
The applicant proposes to locate a 13 space parking lot closer than 10 feet to Des Moines
Drive.
Staff finds that the granting of modification request #4 would not be detrimental to the
public good because the parking lot will be adequately screened through means other than
a 10 foot wide landscaped area.
Staff finds that the granting of modification request #4 does not impair the intent and
purposes of the Land Use Code. The intent behind the requirement to setback parking lots
from the public right of way is to allow adequate spacing for buffering of the parking lot
from the street and street sidewalk. The applicant is proposing a decorative wall that will
screen and buffer the parking lot, therefore the proposed plan does not impair the intent
and purpose of the Land Use Code.
Staff finds that the proposed plan reflecting modification request #4 will advance and
protect the purposes of the standard for which the modification is being requested equally
well as a plan that complies with the standard. The purpose for this section of the LUC as
described in Section 3.2.2(A) 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
Modification of Standards for LaGrange Multi -family Housing at Rigden Farm, File #56-98E
May 18, 2000 P&Z Meeting
Page 6
Exhibit D shows the property line of the greenbelt and the side and rear yard setback lines.
Where these lines cross is hatched. The hatched areas depict where the setbacks are not
being met. Notice that the facades of these units facing the greenbelt are not parallel to
the property line of the greenbelt. The primary entrance fagades of the units to the north of
the greenbelt face either southwest or southeast, and the primary entrance facades of the
units south of the greenbelt face either northwest or northeast. The purpose for this
standard as described in 3.5.2(A) is "to promote variety and visual interest in zone districts
predominately characterized by residential development." Because of the fact that the
facades facing this greenbelt will have the primary entrances to these dwelling units, and
the fact that the facades facing the greenbelt face four different directions, staff feels that
both variety and visual interest are being provided in the proposed design. Exhibit B
shows one possible design that satisfies the code. Another option that is not shown would
be for the building locations to be pushed back away from the greenbelt property line
enough to not encroach into the setbacks. Either of these options, in staffs opinion, would
have at least the same variety and visual interest if not less variety and visual interest than
what the applicant is proposing. Staff therefore finds that the proposed plan reflecting
modification request #2 will promote variety and visual interest at least equally well as
a plan which satisfies the code. Again, the term "visual interest' can be interpreted by
different people in different ways and is actually more of a judgement call than a hard and
fast factual term, but by staffs judgement, an item is visually more interesting if the item
being viewed is closer to the viewer due to the fact that more detail can be seen. Staff
feels that by allowing the primary entrances that face the "rear" property line to be pulled
closer to the greenbelt, the visual interest of the development is enhanced. Staff therefore
finds that the proposed plan reflecting modification request #2 will promote visual
interest better than a plan which satisfies the code.
(C) Modification Request #3 — Section 3.2.2 (K)(1) requires that multifamily dwellings
provide 1.75 parking spaces for each two bedroom dwelling unit, and 2.0 parking
spaces for each three bedroom dwelling unit.
The applicant is required to provide 178 parking spaces based the total number of
proposed units (and the number of bedrooms in each of those units). As proposed the
plan provides 166 spaces. If the applicant were to make the proposed Rockford Drive into
a private drive rather than a public street, the 12 parallel parking spaces along that drive
would be allowed to count toward the required number of parking spaces, thereby
satisfying the parking requirement. The applicant proposes to make Rockford Drive a
public street with 12 parallel parking spaces. Parking spaces on public streets officially
cannot count toward parking requirements. The applicant therefore requests that the
required number of parking spaces for the proposed project be reduced by 12 spaces from
178 spaces to 166 spaces.
Staff finds that the granting of modification request #3 would not be detrimental to the
public good because there will physically be the same number of parking spaces available
in the proposed plan as would be available in the plan that satisfies the code.
Modification of Standards for LaGrange Multi -family Housing at Rigden Farm, File #56-98E
May 18, 2000 P&Z Meeting
Page 5
Because of the density distribution approved with the ODP, this site will have a density of
approximately 10 dwelling units an acre. Staff feels that in cases like this when LMN is
allowed to be developed at higher densities, maintaining a 15 foot setback is no longer
necessary, because the low density character is not needed (or desired) in higher density
development.
The purpose for this standard as described in 3.5.2(A) is "to promote variety and visual
interest in zone districts predominately characterized by residential development." If the
applicant were to meet the standard, every one of the front yard setbacks would be
allowed to be placed at exactly 15 feet, whereas if the modification request is granted,
there will be a variety of setbacks including 9, 10, 11, 13 and 15 feet. Five different
setback distances provides more variety than one setback distance, therefore staff finds
that the proposed plan reflecting modification request #1 will promote variety better than
a plan which satisfies the code. The term "visual interest" can be interpreted by
different people in different ways and is actually more of a judgement call than a hard and
fast factual term. Staffs interpretation of the term "visual interest" is that it can easily be a
byproduct of having visual variety. In this case, having the variety of setbacks of 9 , 10,
11, 13 and 15 feet is visually more interesting than if all of the setbacks were exactly 15
feet. Another reason staff feels that visual interest is promoted in the applicant's proposed
design is that the pedestrians are physically closer to the front facades and front porches
than they would be in a plan that satisfies the code. Again, this test really is a judgement
call, but by staffs judgement, an item is visually more interesting if the item being viewed is
closer to the viewer due to the fact that more detail can be seen. Therefore, staff finds that
the proposed plan reflecting modification request #1 will promote visual interest better
than a plan which satisfies the code.
(B) Modification Request #2 — Section 3.5.2 (D)(3) requires that the side yard setback for
all residential buildings be at least five (5) feet, and that the rear yard setback for all
residential buildings be at least fifteen (15) feet.
The applicant proposes to reduce the rear and side yard setbacks between the units and
the drainageway/greenbelt. Please refer to the "Side and Rear Yard Setback" detail
(Exhibit D), for a visual representation of where the applicant would like to vary these
setbacks. Staff finds that the granting of modification request #2 would not be detrimental
to the public good because the request does not conflict with any utility easements.
Staff finds that the granting of modification request #2 does not impair the intent and
purposes of the Land Use Code. By definition, the property boundary along the
greenbelt/drainageway is the "rear " property line, although the primary entrances to the
dwelling units will face this property line. Staff feels that because this "rear" property line
has the primary entrances facing it, and because this is a higher density portion of LMN
development, the reduction in the setback does not impair the intent and purpose of the
Land Use Code.
Modification of Standards for LaGrange Multi -family Housing at Rigden Farm, File #56-98E
May 18, 2000 P&Z Meeting
Page 4
(3) the plan as submitted would satisfy one of the following:
(a) the purpose of the standard is satisfied equally well or better than a
plan that satisfies the standard, or
(b) the proposed project would substantially address an important
community need specifically and expressly defined and described
in the city's Comprehensive Plan, adopted policy, ordinance or
resolution, or
(c) strict application of the standard sought to be modified would result
in unusual and exceptional practical difficulties or exceptional
hardship due to exceptional physical conditions unique to such
property.
3. APPLICANT'S REQUEST
The applicant has proposed that the modification requests meet the requirements of LUC
2.8.2 Modification Review Procedures (H) Step 8 (Standards). Please see the attached
written justification by the applicant.
4. ANALYSIS OF MODIFICATION REQUEST
(A) Modification Request #1 - Section 3.5.2(D)(2) requires that every building be set back
fifteen (15) feet from a street right-of-way.
The applicant proposes to reduce the setback along non -arterial streets as follows:
22 residential units will have 13 foot setbacks from the street right-of-way,
4 residential units will have 11 foot setbacks from the street right-of-way,
4 residential units will have 9 foot setbacks from the street right-of-way,
1 residential unit will have a 10 foot setback from the street right-of-way.
Staff finds that the granting of modification request #1 would not be detrimental to the
public good, because the modification request does not adversely affect the 9 foot wide
utility easement.
Staff finds that the granting of modification request #1 does not impair the intent and
purposes of the Land Use Code. This section of the code specifically allows 7 foot
setbacks for all residential zones except RL, UE, and LMN. Staff feels that the reason that
LMN was included in this exception is because it is a zone of primarily lower densities. 15
feet of front yard setback will typically help to create a low density type character. This site
is part a portion of LMN zoning that was planned with an Overall Development Plan.
Modification of Standards for LaGrange Multi -family Housing at Rigden Farm, File #56-98E
May 18, 2000 P&Z Meeting
Page 3
The property is west of Rigden Parkway, north of Custer Drive, south of Limon Drive, and
east of Minnesota Drive, and was annexed into the City as part of the Timberline
Annexation in November of 1997.
For illustrative purposes, the applicant submitted two illustrative site plan options
(1) The "Proposed Site Plan" (Exhibit A) depicting the applicants proposed modification
requests.
(2) The "Allowed Site Plan" (Exhibit B) depicting what the site would look like if it satisfied
the code without any modifications.
The applicant has also submitted several details that help to clarify some of the issues:
(1) The "Setback From Nonarterial Street" detail (Exhibit C),
(2) The "Side and Rear Yard Setback" detail (Exhibit D),
(3) The "Rockford as a Private Drive" detail (Exhibit E),
(4) The "Parking Lot Setback" detail (Exhibit F),
(5) The "Private Drive Intersection Locations" drawing (Exhibit G),
(6) The "Private Drive Intersection Perspective" drawing (Exhibit H),
(7) The city's "Pedestrian Ramp Detail" drawing (Exhibit 1),
(8) The city's "New Driveway Approach Details" drawing (Exhibit J).
The applicant currently has a Project Development Plan under review for the entire site,
called La Grange Multi -family Housing at Rigden Farm, Current Planning File 56-98D. The
uses proposed in the P.D.P. are permitted in the LMN — Low Density Mixed -Use
Neighborhood District and the proposed density is consistent with the Overall
Development Plan. A recommendation will be forwarded to the Hearing Officer as a
Project Development Plan, at the appropriate time for final review as outlined in the Land
Use Code Section 2.4.2 Project Development Plan Review Procedures.
2. THE MODIFICATION PROCESS
(A) Section 2.8.2(H) of the LUC specifies that in order to approve a modification the
Planning and Zoning Board must find that:
(1) the granting is not detrimental to the public good,
(2) the granting of the modification does not impair the intent and purposes of
the Land Use Code, and
Modification of Standards for LaGrange Multi -family Housing at Rigden Farm, File #56-98E
May 18, 2000 P&Z Meeting
Page 2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: This is a request for modification to six sections of the Land Use
Code:
(1) 3.5.2 Residential Building Standards (D) Residential Building Setbacks (2)
Setback from Nonarterial Streets - this section of the Land Use Code requires that 1-0
every building be set back fifteen (15) feet from a street right-of-way.;
(2) 3.5.2 Residential Building Standards (D) Residential Building Setbacks (3) Side AffareJ
and Rear Yard Setbacks - This section of the Land Use Code requires that the side v
yard setback for all residential buildings be at least five (5) feet, and that the rear yard
setback for all residential buildings be at least fifteen (15) feet.
(3) 3.2.2 Access, Circulation and Parking (K) Parking Lots - Required Number of A?e,,b�d
Spaces for Type of Use (1) Residential and Institutional Parking Requirements (a)
Attached Dwellings - This section of the Land Use Code requires that multifamily -4_0
dwellings provide 1.75 parking spaces for each two bedroom dwelling unit, and 2.0
parking spaces for each three bedroom dwelling unit; I
(4) 3.2.2 Access, Circulation and Parking (J) Setbacks - This section of the Land Use vkv)v
Code requires that vehicular areas containing 6 or more parking spaces shall be set 15-2,
back a minimum average of 10 feet from any non -arterial public street;
(5) 3.6.2 Streets, Streetscapes, Alleys and Easements (L) Private Drives (2) Design
Requirements (e) - This section of the Land Use Code requires that a connection of a A(o
private drive with a public street shall be made with a driveway cut using "New 6-1
Driveway Approach" in accordance with city standards.
COMMENTS
1. BACKGROUND
The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows:
N: MMN & LMN - undeveloped phases of the Rigden Farm Development,
T - Cargil Research Farm, historic barn, farm land,
E: LMN - undeveloped phases of the Rigden Farm Development, approved phase 1 of
Rigden Farm (under construction),
SE: LMN - a neighborhood center (under construction) including relocated Johnson
Farm structures.
S: LMN - undeveloped phases of the Rigden Farm Development,
RL - existing Dakota Ridge and Stone Ridge Residential Developments,
W: MMN & NC - undeveloped phases of the Rigden Farm Development.
ITEM NO. ,5
MEETING DATE 5 18 0
STAFF Troy Jones
Citv of Fort Collins PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
STAFF REPORT
PROJECT: Modification of Standards for LaGrange Multi -family Housing at
Rigden Farm P.D.P., File #56-98E
OWNER/APPLICANT:
Carl Glaser
Glaser Associates
215 Jefferson
Fort Collins, CO 80524
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request to modify five specific sections of the Land
Use Code. Without the granting of the modification request, the site plan as submitted with
reduced front and rear yard setbacks, reduced parking lot setbacks, reduced parking
counts, and modified private drive/public street intersections could not be developed as
proposed.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the modification requests to sections 3.5.2(D)(2),
3.5.2(D)(3), 3.2.2(K)(1)(a), 3.2.2(J) [modification requests #1 through #4], of the Land Use
Code.
Staff recommends approval of the modification request to section 3.6.2(L)(2)(e)
[modification request #5] subject to the following conditions:
(1)The sidewalk slopes at the private drive intersections are able to meet all ADA
requirements, and
(2)The sidewalk ramps are redesigned to fit completely within the street right-of-
way.
COMMUNITY PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 281 N. College Ave. PO. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 (970) 221-6750
PLANNING DEPARTMENT