HomeMy WebLinkAboutVILLAGE ON HORSETOOTH (AFFORDABLE HOUSING) - PDP - PDP160025 - REPORTS - RECOMMENDATION/REPORT W/ATTACHMENTS (12)Staff Report — Village on Hot-_.00th, PDP160025
Planning & Zoning Board 10-13-2016
Page 29
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Zoning & Site Vicinity Map
2. Statement of Planning Objectives
3. Applicant's Modification of Standard Requests
4. Alternative Compliance Request for Section 3.6.3(H)
5. Village on Horsetooth Plat
6. Village on Horsetooth Planning Document Set (Site Plan, Landscape Plan,
Elevations, & Photometric Plan)
7. Village on Horsetooth Ecological Characterization Study
8. Village on Horsetooth Traffic Impact Study
9. Neighborhood Meeting Notes — June 27, 2016
10. Neighborhood Meeting Notes — August 8, 2016
Staff Report —Village on H. .:tooth, PDP160025
Planning & Zoning Board 10-13-2016
Page 28
A. The Project Development Plan complies with the process located in Division 2.2
— Common Development Review Procedures for Development Applications of
Article 2 — Administration.
B. The Modification of Standard to Section 3.5.2(D)(1) that is proposed with this
Project Development Plan meets the applicable requirements of Section
2.8.2(H), in that the granting of the Modification would not be detrimental to the
public good and the proposal submitted promotes the general purpose of the
code standard equal to or better than would a compliant plan and addresses a
defined community need.
C. The Modification of Standard to Section 3.8.30(C)(2)(b) that is proposed with this
Project Development Plan meets the applicable requirements of Section
2.8.2(H), in that the granting of the Modification would not be detrimental to the
public good and the proposal submitted promotes the general purpose of the
code standard equal to or better than would a compliant plan.
D. The Modification of Standard to Section 3.8.30(D)(1) that is proposed with this
Project Development Plan meets the applicable requirements of Section
2.8.2(H), in that the granting of the Modification would not be detrimental to the
public good and the proposal submitted promotes the general purpose of the
code standard equal to or better than would a compliant plan.
E. The Project Development Plan complies with relevant standards of Article 3 -
General Development Standards, if the Modification of Standard to Sections
3.5.2(D)(1), 3.8.30(C)(2)(b), and 3.8.30(D)(1) are approved.
F. The Modification of Standard to Section 4.5(E)(1)(a) that is proposed with this
Project Development Plan meets the applicable requirements of Section
2.8.2(H), in that the granting of the Modification would not be detrimental to the
public good and the proposal submitted promotes the general purpose of the
code standard equal to or better than would a compliant plan.
G. The Project Development Plan complies with relevant standards located in
Division 4.5 Low Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood (LMN) of Article 4 — Districts,
if the Modification of Standards to section 4.5(E)(1)(a) is approved.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning & Zoning Board approve Village on Horsetooth,
PDP160025, based on the Findings of Fact on pages 27-28 of the staff report.
Staff Report —Village on Hor _.00th, PDP160025
Planning & Zoning Board 10-13-2016
Page 27
5. Public Outreach
Per Land Use Code Section 2.2.2, all projects subject to Planning & Zoning board
review require a neighborhood meeting at least 10 days prior to submittal of a
Project Development Plan. In compliance with this code section, the applicant held
a neighborhood meeting on June 27, 2016 at Rocky Mountain High School. The
meeting was an open house so attendees could learn about the proposed
development and learn about how Fort Collins Housing Authority manages their
developments. The Housing Authority used a 1,300-foot radius for notification to
ensure broader participation. 82 residents attended this neighborhood meeting.
Concerns residents raised at the neighborhood meeting included:
• How the project will be financed
• Perceived loss of property value
• Impact on schools
• Increased traffic congestion
• Too high of concentration of affordable housing in this area of Fort Collins
• Increased crime
• Proximity of buildings to adjacent neighborhoods
• Loss of privacy and safety
• Property maintenance/management
• Access on to Horsetooth Rd.
• Spillover parking onto neighboring streets
• Density of the development
To respond to these concerns, the Housing Authority held a second neighborhood
meeting on August 8, 2016 at Global Village Academy. This meeting was also an
open house to allow participants to get information about various components of the
development. 40 residents attended the second neighborhood meeting. Some
citizens' concerns were alleviated based on the applicant's responses from the first
neighborhood meeting. Others still had concerns about various elements of the
proposed plan identified at the first neighborhood meeting.
6. Findings of Fact/Conclusion:
In evaluating the request for the Village on Horsetooth Project Development Plan,
Staff makes the following findings of fact:
Staff Report —Village on H. .:tooth, PDP160025
Planning & Zoning Board 10-13-2016
Page 26
The maximum height for multi -family buildings is three stories. All of the
multi -family buildings are two stories.
H. Section 4.5(E)(4)(e) — Development Standards — Entrances
Entrances shall be clearly identifiable and visible from the streets and
public areas by incorporating use of architectural elements and
landscaping. All of the entrances have an entryway that contains a roof
overhang, change of plane, and large doorway to define the entrance
clearly.
I. Section 4.5(E)(4)(f) — Development Standards — Roofs
Roof lines can be either sloped, flat or curved, but must include at least
two forms of articulation. All of the proposed roofs are sloped with offsets
in plane, transitions over porches and other projections, as well as
changes in height, which satisfies this code standard.
J. Section 4.5(E)(4)(g) — Development Standards — Facades and Walls
Each multi -family building meets this code standard with respect to
articulating the buildings through projections, recesses, covered
doorways, balconies, minimizing undifferentiated wall planes, and
breaking up blank walls 40 feet or longer. None of these projections
encroaches into a required setback.
K. Section 4.5(E)(4)(h) — Development Standards — Colors and Materials
Colors of non -masonry material shall be varied from structure to structure
to differentiate between buildings and provide variety and individuality.
Buildings shall incorporate contrasting shades to reduce the scale of the
building and distinguish one architectural element from another. Each
building uses light and dark tones to distinguish between different bays of
the building and reduce the scale of the building. These contrasts in color
provide ample variety between buildings and different building elements.
L. Section 4.5(E)(4)(i) — Development Standards — Maximum Floor Area
The maximum gross floor area shall be 14,000 square feet. All of the
buildings have less than 14,000 square feet of floor area.
Staff Report — Village on Hoi. _.00th, PDP160025
Planning & Zoning Board 10-13-2016
Page 25
The proposed use, multi -family dwellings in excess of 50 dwelling units, is
a permitted use subject to review by the Planning & Zoning Board.
B. Section 4.5(D)(1) — Land Use Standards — Density
The maximum density for an affordable housing project containing less
than 10 acres is 12 dwelling units per gross acre. This project proposes a
gross density of 11.69 dwelling units per acre, which is below the
maximum permitted.
C. Section 4.5(E)(4) — Development Standards — Design Standards for Multi -
Family Dwellings Containing More Than Eight (8) Dwelling Units
All of the buildings proposed are consistent with this code section, which
requires that the buildings shall feature a variety of mass proportions, wall
plane proportions, roof proportions, and other characteristics so that the
buildings can be integrated into a low -density neighborhood. Each building
features significant articulation such as change in wall planes, roof planes,
and variations in massing to break the building into smaller modules and
fit in to the neighborhood context.
D. Section 4.5(E)(4)(a) — Development Standards — Maximum Number
The maximum number of dwellings per building is 12. None of the
buildings exceeds 12 dwelling units.
E. Section 4.5(E)(4)(b) — Development Standards — Orientation and Setbacks
Setbacks from the property line of abutting property containing single- and
two-family dwellings shall be 25 feet. All of the buildings are setback at
least 54 feet from abutting properties containing single or two-family
dwelling.
F. Section 4.5(E)(4)(c) — Development Standards — Variation Among
Repeated Buildings
For any development containing more than seven buildings, there shall be
three distinctly different building designs. Similarly to Section 3.8.30(F)(2),
each 8-unit and 12-unit building has two variants with distinctly different
architectural features to differentiate each building type.
G. Section 4.5(E)(4)(d) — Development Standards — Building Height
Staff Report — Village on W .:tooth, PDP160025
Planning & Zoning Board 10-13-2016
Page 24
This standard is duplicative with one found in Section 4.5(E)(4)(e). In the
event of duplicative standards, the standard found in Article 4 shall apply
per Section 3.1.2. As such, a discussion of this standard occurs later in
the section of the staff report dealing with compliance with Article 4 of the
Land Use Code.
GG. Section 3.8.30(F)(5) — Design Standards for Multi -Family Dwellings —
Roofs
This standard is duplicative with one found in Section 4.5(E)(4)(f). In the
event of duplicative standards, the standard found in Article 4 shall apply
per Section 3.1.2. As such, a discussion of this standard occurs later in
the section of the staff report dealing with compliance with Article 4 of the
Land Use Code.
HH. Section 3.8.30(F)(5) — Design Standards for Multi -Family Dwellings —
Facades and Walls
This standard is duplicative with one found in Section 4.5(E)(4)(g). In the
event of duplicative standards, the standard found in Article 4 shall apply
per Section 3.1.2. As such, a discussion of this standard occurs later in
the section of the staff report dealing with compliance with Article 4 of the
Land Use Code.
II. Section 3.8.30(F)(5) — Design Standards for Multi -Family Dwellings —
Colors and Materials
This standard is duplicative with one found in Section 4.5(E)(4)(h). In the
event of duplicative standards, the standard found in Article 4 shall apply
per Section 3.1.2. As such, a discussion of this standard occurs later in
the section of the staff report dealing with compliance with Article 4 of the
Land Use Code.
4. Compliance with Article 4 of the Land Use Code — Low Density Mixed -Use
Neighborhood (LMN), Division 4.5:
The project complies with all applicable Article 4 standards as follows:
A. Section 4.5(8)(3)(a) — Permitted Uses
Staff Report — Village on Ho.. .00th, PDP160025
Planning & Zoning Board 10-13-2016
Page 23
development. The proposed central green space with playground is within
'/4 mile of each building, which satisfies this code requirement.
BB. Section 3.8.30(C)(2)(a) - Access to a Park, Central Feature or Gathering
Place - Size
In development projects greater than 2 gross acres in area, private parks
must be a minimum of 10,000 square feet. The proposed private park is
18,630 square feet, which exceeds the 10,000 square feet minimum
required.
CC. Section 3.8.30(F)(1) - Design Standards for Multi -Family Dwellings -
Orientation and Buffer Yards
Buffer yards along the property line of abutting property containing single
and two-family dwellings shall be 25 feet. The buffer yard shown along the
north property line is 42 feet, 3 inches while the buffer yard along the east
property line is 79 feet in its smallest dimension.
DD. Section 3.8.30(F)(2) - Design Standards for Multi -Family Dwellings -
Variation Among Buildings
This standard is duplicative with one found in Section 4.5(E)(4)(c). In the
event of duplicative standards, the standard found in Article 4 shall apply
per Section 3.1.2. As such, a discussion of this standard occurs later in
the section of the staff report dealing with compliance with Article 4 of the
Land Use Code.
EE. Section 3.8.30(F)(3) - Design Standards for Multi -Family Dwellings -
Variation of Color
For developments with more than 56 dwelling units, there shall be at least
three different color schemes used on structures throughout the
development. No two similarly colored structures shall be placed next to
each other along a street or major walkway spine. There are two color
schemes shown for the residential buildings with a third color scheme
applied to the clubhouse. All of these buildings are arranged in such a way
to prevent two like colored buildings next to one another along a public
street and the major walkway spine.
FF. Section 3.8.30(F)(4) - Design Standards for Multi -Family Dwellings -
Entrances
Staff Report — Village on H_ Aooth, PDP160025
Planning & Zoning Board 10-13-2016
Page 22
Y. Section 3.5.2(E)(3) — Residential Building Setbacks, Lot Width and Size —
Side and Rear Yard Setbacks
The minimum side yard setback for residential buildings is 5 feet from the
property line. The minimum rear yard setback is 8 feet from the property.
All of the proposed buildings exceed this code standard with rear and side
yard setbacks ranging from 37 feet, 2 inches up to 54 feet, 7 inches.
Z. Section 3.6.3(H) — Street Pattern and Connectivity Standards — Alternative
Compliance
Per Land Use Code section 3.6.3(F), if a street is stubbed to the property
line of a vacant parcel, the street shall be continued upon development of
the vacant parcel. An applicant may request an alternative compliance
plan that meets the purpose of this code section equal to or better than a
compliant plan. A request for alternative compliance must show how the
proposed plan does not reduce access and circulation for vehicles, bikes,
and pedestrians to the maximum extent feasible. The alternative
compliance method must also minimize impacts to natural areas and
features, foster non -vehicular access, not impact vehicle level of service
standards on adjacent roadways, and provide connectivity to the
surrounding community.
The applicant has proposed a publicly dedicated bicycle and pedestrian
connection only from Birmingham Dr., which ends at the north property
line of the Village on Horsetooth property. Normally, Birmingham Dr.
would need to be continued through the site and connect to Horsetooth
Rd. This street connection would have multiple ramifications and would be
a detriment to this development, as discussed in the modification request
for Section 3.5.2(D)(1). For the same reasons, staff accepts the alternative
compliance method shown, which is an enhanced bicycle and pedestrian
connection running through the middle of the site. This method does not
materially impact vehicular traffic and circulation and provides a strong
connection for bicyclists and pedestrians, which promotes non -vehicular
access.
AA. Section 3.8.30(C) — Access to a Park, Central Feature or Gathering Place
At least 90% of the dwellings in a development project shall be within '/4
mile of a neighborhood park, privately owned park or central feature or
gathering place that is located either within the project or an adjacent
Staff Report —Village on Hoi- _.00th, PDP160025
Planning & Zoning Board 10-13-2016
Page 21
The proposed buildings will be of a similar height and scale to the
townhouse buildings to the west. To mitigate the size of the buildings in
comparison to the single-family houses nearby, all of the buildings are
located on the interior of the site. On the north end of the property, each
building is at least 90 feet from the property line. For the buildings on the
western end of the property, the buildings are setback 70 feet. On the
east end of the site, the buildings are setback 140 feet at their closest
point. The most southerly buildings are the closest to the property line with
20-foot setbacks. These buildings are amongst the furthest from nearby
homes, however, due to Horsetooth Rd. These generous setbacks provide
ample relief to adjacent homes.
Outdoor Storage Areas/Mechanical Equipment
The proposed plan is consistent with the requirements of the Land Use
Code in regards to the location of outdoor storage, screening of storage
areas, and screening of rooftop mechanical equipment from public view.
Operational/Physical Compatibility
The proposed plan is consistent with the requirements of the Land Use
Code in regards to hours of operation, placement of trash receptacles and
location and number of off-street parking spaces.
W. Section 3.5.2(D)(2) — Relationship of Dwellings to Streets and Parking —
Street -Facing Facades
Every building containing four or more dwelling units shall have one
building entry of doorway facing any adjacent street smaller than a full
arterial or has on -street parking. Each proposed building has main
entryways that open to the internal private drive with on -street parking.
X. Section 3.5.2(E)(1) — Residential Building Setbacks, Lot Width and Size —
Setback from Arterial Streets
The minimum setback for residential buildings along arterial streets is 30
feet unless otherwise noted in Section 3.8.30 of the Land Use Code. Since
the buildings along Horsetooth Rd. are all multi -family buildings, the
standards in Section 3.8.30(E)(3) apply, which prescribes a minimum
setback along arterials of 15 feet. All of the proposed buildings along
Horsetooth Rd. are setback 15 feet.
Staff Report —Village on Ht- ,tooth, PDP160025
Planning & Zoning Board 10-13-2016
Page 20
Parking lots with 151-200 parking spaces are required to provide six
handicap parking spaces with at least one van accessible space. The site
plan shows seven handicap parking spaces. All of these spaces are in
close proximity to front doors with three van accessible spaces.
S. Section 3.2.3 — Solar access, orientation, shading
All developments must be designed to accommodate active and/or
passive solar installations and must not deny adjacent properties access
to sunshine. The proposed buildings are designed and located to
minimize the casting of shadows on adjacent properties and could
accommodate future active and/or passive solar installations.
T. Section 3.2.4 — Site Lighting
The proposed lighting plan is consistent with the requirements of the Land
Use Code in regards to the general standard, lighting levels and design
standards.
U. Section 3.2.5 - Trash and Recycling Enclosures
Trash and recycling enclosures must be provided in locations abutting
refuse collection or storage areas, shall be designed to allow walk-in
access without having to open the main service gate, shall be screened
from public view and shall be constructed on a concrete pad. The
proposed trash and recycling enclosures abut the parking area, allow
walk-in access without having to open the main service gate, are screened
from public view and are built on concrete pads.
V. Section 3.5.1 - Building and Project Compatibility
The proposed plan is consistent with the requirements of the Land Use
Code in regards to building and project compatibility including building
size, height, bulk, mass, scale, mechanical equipment screening and
operational/physical compatibility.
Size, Height, Bulk, Mass and Scale
The projects adjacent to Village on Horsetooth include one and two-story
single-family houses to the north, south, east, and west of the project.
Two-story townhouses abut the property to the west as well.
Staff Report — Village on Ho. __,00th, PDP160025
Planning & Zoning Board 10-13-2016
Page 19
service for the street. This improvement on Horsetooth satisfies this code
section.
N. Section 3.2.2(D)(1) — Access and Parking Lot Requirements —
PedestrianNehicle Separation
To the maximum extent feasible, pedestrians and vehicles shall be
separated through provisions of a sidewalk or walkway. The site complies
with this standard by providing an extensive sidewalk network throughout
the site. The major walkway spine is separate from vehicle use areas by
using a curb, buildings, and open space.
O. Section 3.2.2(E) — Parking Lot Layout
The proposed parking lot layout is consistent with requirements of the
Land Use Code in regards to circulation routes, orientation, and points of
conflict.
P. Section 3.2.2(J) — Setbacks
The proposed parking lot is setback further than the 10-foot minimum from
non -arterial streets and 5-foot minimum along a lot line required per the
Land Use Code.
Q. Section 3.2.2(K) — Off -Street Parking Requirements
Based on the standards for multi -family developments, the minimum
amount of parking for this development is 175 spaces. The site plan
shows 180 parking spaces to serve the proposed development, seven of
which are handicap spaces.
Table 1 - Parking Requirements
Min. Parking
Parking Provided
One bedroom units
9 spaces 6 units * 1.5
9
Two bedroom units
116 spaces 66 units " 1.75
116
Three bedroom units
44 spaces 22 units ` 2
44
Four bedroom units
6 spaces 2 units ` 3
11
Total
175 spaces
180 spaces
R. Section 3.2.2(K)(5) — Handicap Parking
Staff Report — Village on K tooth, PDP160025
Planning & Zoning Board 10-13-2016
Page 18
15 mitigation trees. Many of the trees proposed for removal are Siberian
Elm and Russian Olive trees in poor condition. Siberian Elms and Russian
Olives in poor condition do not require mitigation. All 15 mitigation trees
will be provided on -site and meet the minimum requirements for caliper
size.
J. Section 3.2.2(C)(1) — Safety Considerations
To the maximum extent feasible, pedestrians shall be separated from
vehicles and bicycles. The major walkway spine running through the
middle of the site is separated from vehicles by a curb, buildings, and
open space. Similarly, the trail connection is separated by a curb and
open space.
K. Section 3.2.2(C)(4)(6) - Bicycle Parking Space Requirements
For multi -family residential, one bike parking space is required per
bedroom with at least 60% provided in an enclosed space. Since there
will be 212 bedrooms the development must provide at least 212 bike
parking spaces with 128 provided in an enclosed location. The site plan
shows 213 bike parking spaces with 128 in enclosed locations (60%) and
85 (40%) on fixed bike racks, which meets this code standard.
L. Section 3.2.2(C)(5) - Walkways
Walkways must be provided to link sidewalks with building entries through
parking lots. These walkways must also provide direct connections to off -
site pedestrian and bicycle destinations. The proposed walkways connect
to all of the front doors for each building. All of the walkways connect to
the sidewalks and bike lane along Horsetooth Rd.
M. Section 3.2.2(C)(7) — Off -Site Access to Pedestrian and Bicycle
Destinations
Off -site pedestrian or bicycle facility improvements may be required in
order to comply with the requirements of section 3.6.4 of the Land Use
Code. Section 3.6.4 requires developments maintain acceptable levels of
service for vehicles, pedestrians, and bicycles. As part of this
development, the applicant will be installing an additional vehicular travel
lane and bike lane along Horsetooth Rd. to maintain an acceptable level of
Staff Report —Village on Ho. ooth, PDP160025
Planning & Zoning Board 10-13-2016
Page 17
the eastern portion of the site will contain a fence and trees to provide
screening. All of the existing trees that run along the ditch will further
screen the development from the neighborhood to the east. These
methods satisfy this code standard.
F. Section 3.2. l (E)(3) — Water Conservation
All proposed landscaping should be designed to incorporate water
conservation materials and techniques. The annual water use should not
exceed 15 gallons/square foot over the site. The proposed landscaping
uses low water use plants and has an overall annual water budget of 8.63
gallons/square foot.
G. Section 3.2. l (E)(4) - Parking Lot Perimeter Landscaping
Parking lots with six or more spaces must be screened from abutting uses
and the street through fences or walls in combination with plant material.
The landscape plan shows a combination of shrubs, trees, and fencing
that will provide screening in accordance with this code section. Shrub
beds line the parking area and south, west, and north property lines. A
privacy fence will also provide additional screening along the north
property line and a portion of the western property line. On the east side of
the property, a combination of trees and fencing will provide screening.
H. Section 3.2.1(E)(5) — Tree Protection and Replacement
For parking lots with more than 100 spaces, at least 10% of the parking lot
interior shall be landscaped areas. Numerous bulb -outs break up the
parking area with shrub beds and canopy shade trees to provide ample
landscaping on the parking lot interior. These areas make up 10.3% of
the interior of the parking area, which satisfies this standard.
Section 3.2.1(F) — Tree Protection and Replacement
Significant trees shall be protected to the extent reasonably feasible.
Where it is not feasible to protect and retain significant trees, the applicant
shall replace such trees with sufficient numbers of mitigation trees on -site
as determined by the City Forester. Currently, the development site
contains 57 trees. The City Forester assessed all of the trees on -site and
determined the mitigation required for the removal of each tree. 31 trees
are slated for removal as part of this development plan, which will require
Staff Report —Village on H. ~'tooth, PDP160025
Planning & Zoning Board 10-13-2016
Page 16
Full tree stocking is required within 50 feet of all high visibility sides of any
building or structure. Full tree stocking means trees should be provided in
clusters or with a spacing of at least 20'-40'. The landscape plan shows
trees planted around each building along Horsetooth Rd. that meet this
standard. All of the buildings fronting the major walkway spine also contain
trees planted at 30'-40' intervals that meet this code section.
B. Section 3.2.1(D)(2) — Tree Planting Standards — Street Trees
The Land Use Code requires canopy shade trees to be planted at 30'-40'
spacing in the center of parkway areas where the sidewalk is detached
from the street. Horsetooth Rd. does not have street trees planted on it
currently. This development will supply street trees spaced at 40' intervals
in accordance with this code section.
C. Section 3.2.1(D)(3) — Tree Planting Standards — Minimum Species
Diversity
No site with more than 60 trees can contain one tree species that makes
up more than 15% of the total number of trees. The landscape plan shows
74 trees, of which the most prominent species is the Gymnocladus diocia.
Gymnocladus diocia makes up 14% of the overall number of trees, which
meets this code standard.
D. Section 3.2.1(D)(5) — Tree Planting Standards — Reduced Minimum Sizes
for Affordable Housing Projects
All of the trees proposed meet the minimum caliper sizes for affordable
housing projects.
E. Section 3.2.1(E)(1) — Buffering Between Incompatible Uses and Activities
Additional landscaping is required on developments adjacent to another
use that is dissimilar. Buffers may be provided through plant material
screening, fences or walls, and/or landform shaping to enhance privacy.
This property abuts single-family detached houses to the north and east.
While this project is also residential in character, the intensity of
development requires additional screening to mitigate potential impacts on
the adjacent houses. The north property line will have a privacy fence
along with a shrub bed and trees to provide adequate screening. Similarly,
Staff Report — Village on Ho, ooth, PDP160025
Planning & Zoning Board 10-13-2016
Page 15
creates a convenient walkable block in the heart of the residential project.
Numerous other walk connections create additional blocks within the community
connecting all residents from their dwellings to their vehicles, bikes, site
amenities and to the public street sidewalk system located along Birmingham
Drive to the north and along Horsetooth Road to the south. Residents would walk
less than 350 feet in either direction to get to a public street sidewalk.
The proposed project without the extension of Birmingham Drive discourages
cut -through traffic (Policy LIV 21.3 — Calm Traffic) and makes this residential
community more cohesive and safer than one that met the standard.
Staff Finding:
Staff finds that the request for a Modification of Standard to section 4.5(E)(1)(a)
is justified by the applicable standards in 2.8.2(H)(1) and 2.8.2(H)(2).
D. The granting of the Modification would not be detrimental to the public
good
E. The project design satisfies 2.8.2(H)(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.
F. The project design satisfied 2.8.2(H)(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.
Staff finds that the proposed plan is equal to or better than a compliant plan. This
modification request is for a slightly more specific version of the standard found
in Land Use Code section 3.8.30(D)(1). As such, the findings from the previous
modification request apply and cover this modification request as well.
3. Compliance with Article 3 of the Land Use Code — General Development
Standards:
The project complies with all applicable General Development Standards as
follows:
A. Section 3.2.1(D)(1)(c) — Tree Planting Standards — Full Tree Stocking
Staff Report — Village on H. ,tooth, PDP160025
Planning & Zoning Board 10-13-2016
Page 14
Staff finds that the considerations for providing 96 units of affordable housing
with a site plan that emphasizes bike and pedestrian connections and a
generous walkway spine in lieu of a street adequately meets the need for a street
in this particular situation. Due to these considerations, similarly, staff finds the
proposed plan to be equal to or better than a plan that would provide a street and
block system.
Modification #4 Description:
The applicant requests a Modification to Section 4.5(E)(1)(a) — Development
Standards — Streets and Blocks to develop a multi -family project without a series
of complete blocks bounded by streets.
Land Use Code Standard Proposed to be Modified (areas underlined and
bolded for emphasis):
Land Use Code 4.5(E)(1)(a):
Street System Block Size. The local street system provided by the
development shall provide an interconnected network of streets in a
manner that results in blocks of developed land bounded by
connecting streets no greater than twelve (12) acres in size.
Summary of Applicant's Justification:
The applicant requests that the Modification be approved and provides the
following justification based upon Criterion 1 (proposal submitted promotes the
standard equal or better than a compliant plan) and Criterion 2 (the proposed
project substantially addresses an important community need):
Applicant's Justification for Modification #4:
• The project as proposed does establish an interconnected pedestrian network
(Policy LIV 21.2 Design Walkable Blocks).
o The project provides multiple pedestrian/bike walks and trails to connect
into and out of the neighborhood. Walks on both the east and west sides
of the central park connect from Birmingham Drive to Horsetooth Road. In
addition there is a crusher fines informal path along the canal.
o The crusher fines path on the east extending from Birmingham Drive to
Horsetooth Road connects the neighborhood to the existing bus stop and
signalized intersection at Seneca Street, creating a safe route to Johnson
Elementary School, located .75 miles to the south, for both the residents
of this project and the existing neighborhood. (Policy 21.4 Provide Access
to Transit)
• The proposed pedestrian/bike system creates "walkable blocks" (Policy LIV 21.2
Design Walkable Blocks). The walkway surrounding the central park space
Staff Report —Village on Ho, _,00th, PDP160025
Planning & Zoning Board 10-13-2016
Page 13
• The proposed pedestrian/bike system creates "walkable blocks" (Policy LIV 21.2
Design Walkable Blocks). The walkway surrounding the central park space
creates a convenient walkable block in the heart of the residential project.
Numerous other walk connections create additional blocks within the community
connecting all residents from their dwellings to their vehicles, bikes, site
amenities and to the public street sidewalk system located along Birmingham
Drive to the north and along Horsetooth Road to the south. Residents would walk
less than 350 feet in either direction to get to a public street sidewalk.
• The proposed project without the extension of Birmingham Drive discourages
cut -through traffic (Policy LIV 21.3 — Calm Traffic) and makes this residential
community more cohesive and safer than one that met the standard.
Staff Finding:
Staff finds that the request for a Modification of Standard to section 3.8.30(D)(1)
is justified by the applicable standards in 2.8.2(H)(1) and 2.8.2(H)(2).
A. The granting of the Modification would not be detrimental to the public
good
B. The project design satisfies 2.8.2(H)(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.
C. The project design satisfied 2.8.2(H)(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.
Staff finds that the proposed plan is equal to or better than a compliant plan. This
modification request dovetails with the modification request for orientation to
streets in Section 3.5.2(D)(1). The Land Use Code guides development to
establish a more "town -like" street and block pattern with buildings along streets
and high levels of connectivity for all modes of travel. Ultimately, the goal is for
multi -family developments to integrate into the community fabric rather than form
free standing, separate complexes.
Staff Report — Village on H. tooth, PDP160025
Planning & Zoning Board 10-13-2016
Page 12
end of the park visible through the entryway at Horsetooth Rd. This building
configuration ensures the park is visible to residents of the development and
separated from vehicular traffic. This configuration serves the residents and
visitors equally well as a park located with better visibility from Horsetooth Rd. or
Birmingham Dr. For these reasons, staff finds the proposed site plan to meet
Land Use Code section 3.8.30(C)(2)(b) equal or better than a compliant plan.
Modification #3 Description:
The applicant requests a Modification to Section 3.8.30(D)(1) — Block
Requirements — Block Structure to develop a multi -family project without a series
of complete blocks bounded by streets.
Land Use Code Standard Proposed to be Modified (areas underlined and
bolded for emphasis):
Land Use Code 3.8.30(D)(1):
Block Structure. Each multi -family project shall be developed as a
series of complete blocks bounded by streets (public or private).
Natural areas, irrigation ditches, high -voltage power lines, operating
railroad tracks and other similar substantial physical features may form up
to two (2) sides of a block.
Summary of Applicant's Justification:
The applicant requests that the Modification be approved and provides the
following justification based upon Criterion 1 (proposal submitted promotes the
standard equal or better than a compliant plan) and Criterion 2 (the proposed
project substantially addresses an important community need):
Applicant's Justification for Modification #3:
• The project as proposed does establish an interconnected pedestrian network
(Policy LIV 21.2 Design Walkable Blocks).
o The project provides multiple pedestrian/bike walks and trails to connect
into and out of the neighborhood. Walks on both the east and west sides
of the central park connect from Birmingham Drive to Horsetooth Road. In
addition there is a crusher fines informal path along the canal.
o The crusher fines path on the east extending from Birmingham Drive to
Horsetooth Road connects the neighborhood to the existing bus stop and
signalized intersection at Seneca Street, creating a safe route to Johnson
Elementary School, located .75 miles to the south, for both the residents
of this project and the existing neighborhood. (Policy 21.4 Provide Access
to Transit)
Staff Report — Village on Ho. ooth, PDP160025
Planning & Zoning Board 10-13-2016
Page 11
• The building elevations that face the park include doors that exit onto patio
spaces of individual residences. Those doors and patios provide visual
interest and create opportunity for social interaction around the park.
• The need for affordable housing is defined in City Plan and the Affordable
Housing Strategic Plan, and the opportunity to provide such housing for 96
households is a significant step towards addressing this important
community need and provides a substantial benefit to these individuals
and the community as a whole.
Staff Finding:
Staff finds that the request for a Modification of Standard to section
3.8.30(C)(2)(b) is justified by the applicable standards in 2.8.2(H)(1) and
2.8.2(H)(2).
A. The granting of the Modification would not be detrimental to the public
good
B. The project design satisfies 2.8.2(H)(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.
C. The project design satisfied 2.8.2(H)(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.
The intent of this code section is to provide a central gathering feature that is
easy to see and access from a public street. A plan could come into compliance
with this code standard in two ways. One way would be to connect Birmingham
Dr. through to Horsetooth Rd. and then include a gathering space visible from
Birmingham. Another option would be to maintain the design concept proposed
but move the park feature towards either Birmingham Dr. or Horsetooth Rd. to
make it more visible. Neither scenario functions better than the plan proposed.
In lieu of a street, the proposed plan provides a parking lot with head -in parking.
The proposed plan shows the central gathering feature in the middle of the
proposed development. Buildings frame the park on three sides with the south
Staff Report — Village on R� ,tooth, PDP160025
Planning & Zoning Board 10-13-2016
Page 10
Land Use Code Standard Proposed to be Modified (areas underlined and
bolded for emphasis):
Land Use Code 3.8.30(C)(2)(b):
Location. Such parks shall be highly visible, secure settings formed by the
street layout and pattern of lots and easily observed from streets. Rear
facades and rear yards of dwellings shall not abut more than two (2)
sides or more than fifty (50) percent of the perimeter frontage of the
park -
Summary of Applicant's Justification:
The applicant requests that the Modification be approved and provides the
following justification based upon Criterion 1 (proposal submitted promotes the
standard equal or better than a compliant plan) and Criterion 2 (the proposed
project substantially addresses an important community need):
Applicant's Justification for Modification #2:
• At 30,000 square feet, the privately owned, centrally located, park is over
three times as big as the Land Use Code requires. The generous size is
due to the fact that Birmingham Drive does not connect through the site to
Horsetooth Road.
• The park is surrounded by a public, tree -lined walkway that defines the
space and provides the visual access that the standard encourages.
• The clubhouse with exterior amenities including patio/deck space, shade
structures, seating, barbeque and playground are located at the south end
of the central park space. The enclosed space makes it ideal for the
families that will live in this community. While the space is not highly
visible from surrounding streets, it is highly visible to most of the people
living in the community and purposely semi -enclosed to make it safer for
children.
• The park space functions better for the residents than a park bordered by
streets because it is safer, more convenient and encourages social
interaction between residents as they utilize site amenities such as the
clubhouse, mail boxes, playground, and community gardens, without
having to cross a street.
• The entrances to the multi -family buildings are purposely located adjacent
to the parking areas, rather than facing the park, to provide convenience
for the residents by shortening how far they need to walk from their car to
the entrance sometimes with children and groceries.
• The proposed multi -family buildings are visually attractive on all sides
utilizing similar architectural detailing and consistent high quality materials
on all sides.
Staff Report — Village on Hoy ooth, PDP160025
Planning & Zoning Board 10-13-2016
Page 9
the applicant, connecting Birmingham Dr. to Horsetooth Rd. would have an
immaterial impact on the level of service of the proposed entry to the
development and the Big Ben Dr./Horsetooth Rd. intersection. Only 41
households would use the connection based on their minimum path to travelling
on Horsetooth Rd. This consideration for vehicular connectivity must be balanced
with the quality of the walkway spine and open space provided in lieu of this
street connection. On the balance, the proposed plan provides residents and
neighbors with pedestrian and bicycle connectivity equal to a compliant plan.
Residents and neighbors will have access to a walkway spine that cuts through
18,630 square feet of open space. This walkway and open space provides direct,
safe connectivity for pedestrians and bikes that ultimately enhance the livability of
Village on Horsetooth.
Based on the site plan proposed, staff finds the proposed site plan is equal to a
plan that would meet this code section. The connecting walkway meets the code
standards and provides a safe, pleasant environment for pedestrians and
bicyclists. While motorists will not have the connection to Horsetooth Rd. they
would otherwise have, few cars would use this connection. This site plan also
provides high quality open space for residents and access for pedestrians and
bikes from the adjacent neighborhood.
Defined Community Need:
Since affordable housing is an articulated goal of City Plan, the Affordable
Housing Strategic Plan, and the Land Bank program, the proposed development
addresses an important community need. The proposed plan allows the
development to proceed without the cost of continuing a street. Continuing
Birmingham Dr. would come at a significant cost to the developer and would
affect the feasibility of the project. As proposed, furthermore, Village on
Horsetooth would serve families earning 30% Area Median Income. The
Affordable Housing Strategic Plan places particular emphasis on providing
affordable housing to families earning 30% of Area Median Income. The Fort
Collins Housing Authority is able to provide housing affordable at this income
range due in part to the cost savings of not building Birmingham Dr. For these
reasons, staff supports this modification request based on helping meet a defined
community need.
Modification #2 Description:
The applicant requests a Modification to Section 3.8.30(C)(2)(b) — Access to a
Park, Central Feature or Gathering Place — Location to provide a central
gathering feature with rear facades and yards of dwellings abutting on more than
2 sides.
Staff Report — Village on H: ,tooth, PDP160025
Planning & Zoning Board 10-13-2016
Page 8
development of the site to comply with this code section and achieve the visions
of City Plan, the Affordable Housing Strategic Plan, and the Land Bank program.
A plan that would meet this code section would connect Birmingham Dr. to
Horsetooth Rd. with dwellings arrayed around the street. Each structure would
front on Birmingham Dr. with parking located behind the structure. City Plan and
the Land Use Code call for development with this pattern to provide a complete
network of streets to improve connectivity for all modes of transportation. This
type of layout would also make the development appear seamless and tied into
the adjacent neighborhood pattern. This street connection would improve
connectivity for all transportation modes. The question at hand is, therefore, does
the proposed plan meet the intent of the Land Use Code and other adopted
policy plans equal to or better than a compliant plan?
In lieu of connecting Birmingham Dr. to Horsetooth Rd., the applicant proposes to
develop a major connecting walkway spine to provide pedestrian and bicycle
connectivity through the site. A major walkway spine is defined as a tree -lined
connecting walkway that is at least 5 feet wide, with landscaping along both
sides, located in an outdoor space that is at least 35 feet in its smallest
dimension, with all parts of such outdoor space directly visible from a public
street. For a plan to meet this code standard with the orientation towards a major
walkway spine, as proposed, building entrances must be within 350 feet of a
street. Some doorways are 430 feet away from the nearest street in the proposed
site plan.
While some units will be further than 350 feet away from the nearest street, the
quality of the walkway spine mitigates for the additional distance. The walkway
spine is far more generous than prescribed by code. At its widest point, the green
space and walkway area is over 300 feet wide. Nearly the entire walkway spine
is completely separated from the roadway, increasing security for the users of the
walk. The walkway is also visible from both Horsetooth Rd. and Birmingham Dr.
Non-residents will be afforded access to the walkway spine through a public
access easement. This ensures connectivity for the community for cyclists and
pedestrians. Both sides of the walkway will also feature trees planted at 30-40
foot intervals and extensive shrub plantings for a welcoming, shaded
environment. If the plan met the code requirements as outlined earlier in this
section, bikes would likely share the road with cars on Birmingham Dr. while
pedestrians would likely have detached sidewalks that connect to Horsetooth Rd.
This condition does not provide the level of safety and comfort compared to the
plan proposed.
From a vehicular perspective, however, the proposed site plan does not provide
interconnectivity. The principal consideration is how many people would likely
use Birmingham Dr. by virtue of this street connection and the degree to which a
street would benefit the neighborhood. According to the traffic study supplied by
Staff Report —Village on Ho, ooth, PDP160025
Planning & Zoning Board 10-13-2016
Page 7
• Access to public street sidewalk and bike lane on Horsetooth is provided
at four locations.
• Pedestrian, bike and emergency access is provided at Birmingham Drive.
• The need for affordable housing is defined in City Plan and the Affordable
Housing Strategic Plan, and the opportunity to provide such housing for 96
households is a significant step towards addressing this important
community need and provides a substantial benefit to these individuals
and the community as a whole.
Staff Finding:
Staff finds that the request for a Modification of Standard to Section 3.5.2(D)(1) is
justified by the applicable standards in 2.8.2(H)(1) and 2.8.2(H)(2).
A. The granting of the Modification would not be detrimental to the public good
B. The project design satisfies 2.8.2(H)(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.
C. The project design satisfied 2.8.2(H)(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.
As Good or Better:
For this particular development, the unique development considerations are
manifold. The context would normally lend itself to continuing Birmingham Dr.
through to Horsetooth Rd. to complete the street network. LMN-zoned property
would also normally be limited to a density of 9 dwelling units per gross acre, or a
maximum of 75 units for an 8.3 acre site. Two other considerations complicate
the site layout and density of development. One is that the parcel is part of the
City's Land Bank program, which has a stated goal of providing affordable
housing to the community. This desire for affordable housing is in alignment with
City Plan and the Affordable Housing Strategic Plan. Due to the acute shortage
of affordable housing in Fort Collins, the development team is seeking the
maximum density allowed for affordable housing within the LMN zone district of
12 dwelling units per gross acre, or 96 units overall. While these considerations
are not necessarily mutually exclusive, they do require a tailored approach to the
Staff Report — Village on HL tooth, PDP160025
Planning & Zoning Board 10-13-2016
Page 6
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 owner's 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.
Any finding made under subparagraph (1), (2), (3) or (4) above shall be
supported by specific findings showing how the plan, as submitted, meets the
requirements and criteria of said subparagraph (1), (2), (3) or (4).
Summary of Applicant's Justification:
The applicant requests that the Modification be approved and provides the
following justification based upon Criterion 1 (proposal submitted promotes the
standard equal or better than a compliant plan) and Criterion 2 (the proposed
project substantially addresses an important community need):
Applicant's Justification Modification #1:
• The land that would have been used for a street can be incorporated into
a central green space defined by buildings and reinforced with walkways
shaded by canopy trees.
• This plan allows the clubhouse and playground to be centrally located and
accessed by residents without crossing a public street.
• The plan as proposed encourages neighborhood social interaction better
than a project divided with a public street.
• Access to all amenities on the site is more convenient and safer
(especially for children) without a public street bisecting the site.
Staff Report — Village on Ho. ooth, PDP160025
Planning & Zoning Board 10-13-2016
Page 5
2. Compliance with Section 2.8.2(H) of the Land Use Code - Modification of
Standards
Modification #1 Description:
The applicant requests a Modification to Section 3.5.2(D)(1) - Orientation to a
Connecting Walkway to have units located more than 350 feet away from a
public sidewalk.
Land Use Code Standard Proposed to be Modified (areas underlined and
bolded for emphasis):
Land Use Code 3.5.2(D)(1):
Every front facade with a primary entrance to a dwelling unit shall
face the adiacent street to the extent reasonably feasible. Every front
facade with a primary entrance to a dwelling unit shall face a connecting
walkway with no primary entrance more than two hundred (200) feet from
a street sidewalk. The following exceptions to this standard are permitted:
(a) Up to two (2) single-family detached dwellings on an individual
lot that has frontage on either a public or private street.
(b) A primary entrance may be up to three hundred fifty (350)
feet from a street sidewalk if the primary entrance faces and
opens directly onto a connecting walkway that qualifies as a
maior walkway spine.
(c) If a multi -family building has more than one (1) front facade, and
if one (1) of the front facades faces and opens directly onto a street
sidewalk, the primary entrances located on the other front facade(s)
need not face a street sidewalk or connecting walkway.
Land Use Code Modification Criteria:
"The decision maker may grant a modification of standards only if it finds that 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
Staff Report — Village on HL tooth, PDP160025
Planning & Zoning Board 10-13-2016
Page 4
Staff Report —Village on Ho. ooth, PDP160025
Planning & Zoning Board 10-13-2016
Page 3
City would then sell the property to an affordable housing developer with restrictions.
These restrictions included the limitation that rental units must serve households
earning no more than 50% of the Area Median Income (AMI) and homes for sale could
serve households earning no more than 60% AMI. The City purchased 1506 W
Horsetooth as part of the Land Bank program in 2003. The Social Sustainability
department conducted a study on the Land Bank properties in 2015 that recommended
the sale of 1506 W Horsetooth. In accordance with this recommendation, the City
issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) for qualified affordable housing developers to
develop the site. After interviewing multiple development teams, the City selected the
Housing Authority as the developer for the Horsetooth Land Bank property. The final
sale of the property from the City to the Housing Authority is contingent upon the
Housing Authority gaining approval through the development review process.
The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows:
Direction
Zone District
Existing Land Uses
North
Low Density Residential RL
Residential
South
Low Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood
LMN , Count
Residential
East
Low Density Residential (RL), Medium
Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood
MMN
Residential
West
Low Density Residential (RL)
Residential
Below is a zoning and site vicinity map.
Staff Report —Village on Hc, cooth, PDP160025
Planning & Zoning Board 10-13-2016
Page 2
• The Modification of Standard to Section 3.5.2(D)(1) that is proposed with this
Project Development Plan meets the applicable requirements of Section
2.8.2(H), in that the granting of the Modification would not be detrimental to the
public good and the proposal submitted promotes the general purpose of the
code standard equal to or better than would a compliant plan.
• The Modification of Standard to Section 3.8.30(C)(2)(b) that is proposed with this
Project Development Plan meets the applicable requirements of Section
2.8.2(H), in that the granting of the Modification would not be detrimental to the
public good and the proposal submitted promotes the general purpose of the
code standard equal to or better than would a compliant plan.
• The Modification of Standard to Section 3.8.30(D)(1) that is proposed with this
Project Development Plan meets the applicable requirements of Section
2.8.2(H), in that the granting of the Modification would not be detrimental to the
public good and the proposal submitted promotes the general purpose of the
code standard equal to or better than would a compliant plan.
• The Project Development Plan complies with relevant standards of Article 3 -
General Development Standards, if the Modification of Standard to Sections
3.5.2(D)(1), 3.8.30(C)(2)(b), and 3.8.30(D)(1) are approved.
• The Modification of Standard to Section 4.5(E)(1)(a) that is proposed with this
Project Development Plan meets the applicable requirements of Section
2.8.2(H), in that the granting of the Modification would not be detrimental to the
public good and the proposal submitted promotes the general purpose of the
code standard equal to or better than would a compliant plan.
• The Project Development Plan complies with relevant standards located in
Division 4.5 Low Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood (LMN) of Article 4 — Districts,
if the Modification of Standards to section 4.5(E)(1)(a) is approved.
COMMENTS:
1. Background
The property was annexed into the City as part of the Werner Annex on April 1, 1980.
The property has operated as a horse arena and single-family residence for decades. In
2001, the City of Fort Collins created a program called the Land Bank. The Land Bank's
purpose was for the City of Fort Collins to purchase parcels of land throughout the
Growth Management Area that had development impediments that would be alleviated
by surrounding development over time. After holding these parcels for 5-15 years, the
City of
F6rt Coltins
MEETING DATE
STAFF
October 131", 2016
Clay Frickey
PLANNING & ZONING BOARD
PROJECT: Village on Horsetooth, PDP160025
APPLICANT: Kristin Fritz
Fort Collins Housing Authority
1715 W Mountain Ave
Fort Collins, CO 80521
OWNERS: City of Fort Collins
300 Laporte Ave.
Fort Collins, CO 80521
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
This is a request for a Project Development Plan for the Village on Horsetooth, the first
development on City Land Bank property. The proposed development includes 96 new
units of affordable housing for low- income individuals and families. Apartments will be
separated into nine residential buildings and all units will have private outdoor spaces.
Nine residential buildings are to be constructed within (6) 2- story buildings with twelve
(12) units and three (3) 2-story buildings with eight (8) units. Unit types will consist of 1-
, 2-, 3-, and 4-bedroom units. Bedroom and unit mix as follows: 6 one -bedroom/ 1 bath,
66 two -bedroom/ 1 bath, 22 three-bedroom/2 bath, 2 four -bedroom/ 2 bath. Area
Median Income (AMI) Target totals 43 units at 0-30% AMI, 53 units at 51-60% AMI with
96 units total (100% affordable). This development is located on an 8.3 acres site in the
LMN (Low- density Mixed- Use Neighborhood) zone district.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Village on Horsetooth,
P D P 160025.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Staff finds the proposed Village on Horsetooth Project Development Plan complies with
the applicable requirements of the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code (LUC), more
specifically:
• The Project Development Plan complies with the process located in Division 2.2
— Common Development Review Procedures for Development Applications of
Article 2 — Administration.
Planning Services 281 N College Ave - PO Box 580 - Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580
fcgov.com/developmentreview/ 970.221.6750