HomeMy WebLinkAboutLIVING OAKS - PDP - PDP170009 - REPORTS - RECOMMENDATION/REPORT W/ATTACHMENTSITEM NO 1
MEETING DATE June 27th, 2017
STAFF Clay Frickey
ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING
Planning Services 281 N College Ave – PO Box 580 – Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580
fcgov.com/developmentreview/ 970.221.6750
STAFF REPORT
PROJECT: Living Oaks, PDP170009
APPLICANT: Laurie Davis
Davis + Davis Architects
141 S College Ave.
Suite 102
Fort Collins, CO 80524
OWNERS: Robert/Laurie Davis
722 W Mountain Ave.
Fort Collins, CO 80521
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
This is a request to build a 3-story, 4-unit residential building at 221 E Oak St. (parcel
#9712320020). One shared vehicle is proposed on-site with additional parking
accommodated at the Remington St. parking garage. The site is located in the
Neighborhood Conservation, Buffer (NCB) zone district.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Living Oaks, PDP170009.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Staff finds the proposed Living Oaks 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.
The Modification of Standard to Section 3.2.2(K)(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 is equal to or better than a proposal that
would meet the code.
Staff Report – Living Oaks, PDP170009
Administrative Hearing, 6-27-2017
Page 2
The Modification of Standard to Section 4.9(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 is equal to or better than a proposal that
would meet the code.
The Modification of Standard to Section 4.9(D)(5) 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 is equal to or better than a proposal that
would meet the code.
The Modification of Standard to Section 4.9(D)(6)(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 is equal to or better than a proposal that
would meet the code.
The Modification of Standard to Section 4.9(D)(6)(c) 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 is equal to or better than a proposal that
would meet the code.
The Modification of Standard to Section 4.9(D)(6)(d) 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 is equal to or better than a proposal that
would meet the code.
The Modification of Standard to Section 4.9(E)(1)(g) 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 is equal to or better than a proposal that
would meet the code.
The Project Development Plan complies with relevant standards of Article 3 –
General Development Standards, provided the modification to Section
3.2.2(K)(1)(a) is approved.
Staff Report – Living Oaks, PDP170009
Administrative Hearing, 6-27-2017
Page 3
The Project Development Plan complies with relevant standards located in
Division 4.8 Neighborhood Conservation, Medium Density (NCM) of Article 4 –
Districts, provided the modification to Sections 4.9(D)(1), 4.9(D)(5), 4.9(D)(6)(b),
4.9(D)(6)(c), 4.9(D)(6)(d), and 4.9(E)(1)(g) are approved.
COMMENTS:
1. Background
The property was part of the Original Town Site Annex on January 16, 1873. The
property was platted as Lot 8, Block 132 as indicated on the Fort Collins 1873 Map.
This lot was later subdivided and Peerless Tire built a shop on the site. In 1997, the use
changed from a tire shop to an office. In 2006, the use changed to a single-family
detached residence. A hearing officer approved a duplex for the site on April 5, 2007.
The previous owner demolished the existing structure to build the duplex but never
completed the approved duplex. The site has sat vacant since.
The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows:
Direction Zone District Existing Land Uses
North Downtown (D), Neighborhood
Conservation – Buffer (NCB) Church, residential, office
South Neighborhood Conservation – Buffer
(NCB) Residential, office
East Neighborhood Conservation – Medium
Density (NCM) Park, library, residential, office
West Downtown (D) Residential, retail, office
Below is a zoning and site vicinity map.
Staff Report – Living Oaks, PDP170009
Administrative Hearing, 6-27-2017
Page 4
Map 1: Living Oaks Zoning & Site Vicinity
Staff Report – Living Oaks, PDP170009
Administrative Hearing, 6-27-2017
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 3.2.2(K)(1)(a) to a shared
vehicle on site with each unit also having one parking pass for the nearby
Remington St. Garage.
Land Use Code Standard Proposed to be Modified (areas underlined and
bolded for emphasis):
Land Use Code 3.2.2(K)(1)(a):
Attached Dwellings: For each two-family and multi-family dwelling there shall be
parking spaces provided as indicated in the following table:
Number of Bedrooms/Dwelling Unit Parking Spaces per Dwelling Unit
One or less 1.5
Two 1.75
Three 2
Four and above 3
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
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,
Staff Report – Living Oaks, PDP170009
Administrative Hearing, 6-27-2017
Page 6
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).
Applicant’s Justification Modification #1:
Site is not in the Transit Oriented Development Overlay Zone (TOD) but is
closer to amenities and transit than projects within the TOD (Criterion 1).
The proposal will help achieve goals outlined in the City of Fort Collins 2016
Strategic Plan and the Climate Action Plan (Criterion 2).
The proposal is consistent with Section 1.2.2 of the Land Use Code (Criterion
4).
Staff Finding:
The applicant sought relief from 3.2.2(K)(1)(a) through a standalone modification
request in December 2016. The Planning & Zoning Board unanimously approved
this request with a condition to require a transit pass for each unit on December
15, 2016 (attachment 4). At that time, the applicant was proposing a live/work
building with six residential units. Since then, the applicant changed their plans to
omit the two live/work units and only have four residential units. As such, the
parking requirements have changed, which necessitates a new modification
request.
Staff agrees with the applicant’s assessment that the project is located in a
transit friendly area despite not being within the TOD boundaries. The site is near
high frequency transit and amenities. When compared to other approved projects
within the TOD, this site is as close or closer to high frequency transit and
amenities (attachment 5). When the TOD boundaries were established, they
followed zone district boundaries rather than proximity to high frequency transit
and amenities. The block of NCB zoned properties between Oak and Olive on
Staff Report – Living Oaks, PDP170009
Administrative Hearing, 6-27-2017
Page 7
Mathews was excluded despite having the qualities of a transit-oriented area.
Between the car share on-site and parking within the nearby public garage, staff
finds the applicant’s proposed parking scheme to be equal to or better than a
compliant plan and meets 2.8.2(H)(1).
Modification #2 Description:
The applicant requests a Modification to Section 4.9(D)(1) – Density to have floor
area greater than the lot size.
Land Use Code Standard Proposed to be Modified (areas underlined and
bolded for emphasis):
Land Use Code 4.9(D)(1):
Density. Minimum lot area shall be equivalent to the total floor area of
the building(s), but not less than five thousand (5,000) square feet.
Applicant’s Justification for Modification #2:
Increase in density is reasonable since this block provides a transition from
Downton to the surrounding residential area (Criterion 1).
Other projects on this block have received relief from this standard.
Staff Finding:
The purpose of this standard is for developments in the NCB to allow medium-
density developments that provide a transition between Downtown and
neighborhoods that consist predominantly of single-family detached homes.
Every block of the NCB district is distinct. The block between Oak and Olive
along Mathews is characterized by denser development when compared to many
other NCB blocks. Only one of the buildings on this block would meet today’s
density requirement.
Building Lot Size Floor Area Floor Area Ratio
Townhomes at
Library Park 12,600 30,188 2.4
Parkview
Apartments 12,320 18,555 1.51
215 Mathews 7,000 11,901 1.7
207 Mathews 14,000 11,776 .84
Living Oaks 4,600 9,200 2
Staff Report – Living Oaks, PDP170009
Administrative Hearing, 6-27-2017
Page 8
Given this context, it is appropriate for a building to exceed the floor area ratio
prescribed by the Land Use Code. Library Park buffers this block from the
neighborhoods. This minimizes the impact these developments have on the
neighborhoods. The lot is further challenged by having less square footage than
the minimum allowed per this code standard. Staff finds the proposed plan fits
into the context of the block while providing an appropriate transition to the
adjacent neighborhood. Staff finds that the proposed plan meets the general
purpose of the standard equal to a proposal that would comply with the code per
Section 2.8.2(H)(1).
Modification #3 Description:
The applicant requests a modification to Section 4.9(D)(5) to exceed the
allowable floor area in the rear half of the lot.
Land Use Code Standard Proposed to be Modified:
Land Use Code 4.9(D)(5):
Allowable Floor Area on Rear Half of Lots. The allowable floor area on the rear
half of a lot shall not exceed thirty-three (33) percent of the area of the rear fifty
(50) percent of the lot.
Applicant’s Justification for Modification #3:
28% of the building is in the rear half of the lot
Building is pushed as far north as possible to allow better sun access for
the photovoltaic panels and maintaining an urban street edge
Staff Finding:
The purpose of this standard is to maintain the historic development pattern of
the East and Westside neighborhoods. Historically, most lots were long and
narrow and contained large backyards with small out buildings. This standard
prevents the rear portion of lots from being heavily developed in keeping with this
development pattern.
The block of Mathews between Oak and Olive displays a development pattern
atypical of the East and Westside neighborhoods. The block has a development
pattern more akin to the Downtown area. None of the lots in this block have
backyards. The rear halves of each lot contain either buildings or parking areas.
Only one of the buildings (207 Mathews) would meet the current rear half floor
area ratio requirements.
Staff Report – Living Oaks, PDP170009
Administrative Hearing, 6-27-2017
Page 9
Given this context, the proposed building fits the established character of the
block. Staff finds the proposed plan is equal to or better than a compliant plan.
Modifications #s 4-6 Description:
The applicant is seeking relief to a series of standards related to setbacks
prescribed in the Neighborhood Conservation – Buffer District section. These
standards include:
Section 4.9(D)(6)(b) – Dimensional Standards. Minimum front yard setback.
Section 4.9(D)(6)(c) – Dimensional Standards. Minimum rear yard setback.
Section 4.9(D)(6)(d) – Dimensional Standards. Minimum side yard width.
Land Use Code Standards Proposed to be Modified:
Land Use Code 4.9(D)(6)(b):
Minimum front yard setback shall be fifteen (15) feet.
Land Use Code 4.9(D)(6)(c):
Minimum rear yard setback shall be five (5) feet from existing alley and fifteen
(15) feet in all other conditions.
Land Use Code 4.9(D)(6)(d):
Minimum side yard width shall be five (5) feet for all interior side yards.
Whenever any portion of a wall or building exceeds eighteen (18) feet in height,
such portion of the wall or building shall be set back from the interior side lot line
an additional one (1) foot, beyond the minimum required, for each two (2) feet or
fraction thereof of wall or building height that exceeds eighteen (18) feet in
height. Minimum side yard width shall be fifteen (15) feet on the street side of any
corner lot.
Applicant’s Justification for Modifications #4-6:
The proposed setbacks fit into the context established along Oak and
Mathews (criterion 1).
The ground floor meets the rear yard setback requirement but the upper
floors do not, which is a nominal and inconsequential difference (criterion 4).
The building will anchor the corner and enhance the intrinsic value of Library
Park (criterion 1).
The windows will have more depth than typical buildings by virtue of being
Net Zero, which is better than what would be provided in a regular building
Staff Report – Living Oaks, PDP170009
Administrative Hearing, 6-27-2017
Page 10
(criterion 1).
Staff Finding:
One of the principal issues with development on the lot in question is that it is a
small lot on a corner in a zone district that requires generous setbacks. Of the
4,200 square feet of lot area, only 1,460 square feet or 35% of the lot area is
developable with the setbacks required. None of the buildings along Mathews
between Oak and Olive meet all of the setbacks currently required in the NCB
zone district.
This block of Mathews is also unique in that the back of sidewalk is not the edge
of right-of-way like it is in most of Fort Collins. The right-of-way extends almost
five feet behind the sidewalk. This means that zero-lot line developments will still
have nearly five feet of landscaping between the building and the sidewalk. This
condition minimizes the looming effect of large structures to adjacent public
spaces.
The effect of the setback requirements is that it creates a suburban style
development pattern consistent with neighborhoods predominated by single-
family detached homes. The context of this block, however, is one characterized
by a mix of uses and building types more akin to a downtown setting. There are
only two single-family detached homes on any of the block faces surrounding
Living Oaks. Both homes in question are immediately to the west of Living Oaks
and both are built to the property line along Oak St. as well as along the alley.
The remaining buildings have varying setbacks that evoke an urban image. This
block also has a built in buffer with Library Park located on the east side of
Mathews St.
All of these factors make an urban-style development more appropriate. Staff
finds that the modifications requested for 4.9(D)(6)(b)-(d) are all justified by
criterion 1, in that the proposed development meets the intent of these code
section better than a compliant plan given the context.
Modification #7 Description:
The applicant is seeking to have a roof pitch below the minimum pitch of 2:12.
Land Use Code Standards Proposed to be Modified (areas underlined and
bolded for emphasis):
Land Use Code 4.9(E)(1)(g):
Staff Report – Living Oaks, PDP170009
Administrative Hearing, 6-27-2017
Page 11
The minimum pitch of the roof of any building shall be 2:12 and the
maximum pitch of the roof of any building shall be 12:12, except that new,
detached accessory buildings and additions to existing dwelling units may be
constructed with a pitch that matches any roof pitch of the existing dwelling unit.
Additionally, the roof pitch of a dormer, turret or similar architectural feature may
not exceed 24:12 and the roof pitch of a covered porch may be flat whenever the
roof of such a porch is also considered to be the floor of a second-story deck.
Applicant’s Justification for Modification #7:
Roof pitch is only slightly shallower than 2:12 requirement (1.85:12)
Allows building to be one foot lower on the street side
Staff Findings:
The purpose of this standard is for new construction to have similar roof forms to
the roof forms that predominate the East and Westside neighborhoods. While the
proposed building has a shallow roof pitch, the photovoltaic panels provide a
pitched element that tie into other buildings with pitched roofs nearby. Several
buildings within a block of this project have flat roofs or roofs that would not
comply with current standards. The building immediately to the south, 207
Mathews, has a Mansard style roof that would be non-compliant with today’s
zoning code. Three of the buildings on the north side of Oak between Remington
and Mathews have flat roofs. The apartment building at 308 E Oak St also has a
Mansard style roof that would be non-compliant today. Parkview Apartments,
three buildings to the south of Living Oaks, also has a Mansard style roof that
would not comply with this standard. Given the context and the photovoltaic
panels that provide a pitched element to the roof, staff finds the proposed plan is
equal to or better than a compliant plan.
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 – Landscaping and Tree Protection
Staff Report – Living Oaks, PDP170009
Administrative Hearing, 6-27-2017
Page 12
The proposed landscape plan is consistent with all landscaping and tree
protection requirements. More specifically, the proposed landscape plan
shows street trees planted in accordance with Section 3.2.1(D)(2). The
applicant proposes to remove one existing tree to provide a curb cut onto
Mathews St. The landscape plan shows mitigation for the removal of this
tree in accordance with Section 3.2.1(F). The plantings proposed are low
water use and contributes to visual quality and continuity between the
other developments on Oak St. and Mathews St.
B. Section 3.2.2(C)(4)(b) - 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. The proposed
development will contain 8 bedrooms, which will require a total of 8 bicycle
parking spaces with 5 provided in an enclosed space. On the proposed
site plan 12 bicycle parking spaces are shown. Each unit has a 3-space
bike rack in the garage.
C. Section 3.2.2(D) – Access and Parking Lot Requirements
All vehicular use areas in any proposed development shall be designed to
be safe, efficient, convenient and attractive, considering use by all modes
of transportation that will use the system. The proposed access point
leading to the garages meet these requirements by providing unobstructed
access to vehicles, separating modes, and providing parking in an
appropriate location off Mathews St.
D. 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 building is designed and located to minimize
the casting of shadows on adjacent properties and could accommodate
future active and/or passive solar installations.
E. 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.
F. Section 3.4.7 – Historical Resources
Staff Report – Living Oaks, PDP170009
Administrative Hearing, 6-27-2017
Page 13
The project is located adjacent to the Laurel School Historic District. The
Laurel School Historic District is listed on the National Register of Historic
Places. Due to this historic designation, the property is subject to the
requirements in 3.4.7 of the Land Use Code and review by the Landmark
Preservation Commission (LPC). LPC reviewed this project and provided
a final recommendation at their regular meeting on April 19, 2017. Historic
Preservation staff and the LPC found the project to be in compliance with
all elements of this section of the Land Use Code and recommended
approval of the project.
G. 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
Oak St. and Mathews St. both contain a wide range of structures with
respect to size, height, bulk, mass, and scale. The context includes single-
story, single-family detached homes, office buildings, a church, and a four-
story townhome development. The age of the buildings range from the
early 1900’s up to buildings under construction currently. Stylistically, the
area is eclectic without one dominant architectural style. Given the wide
range of buildings, Living Oaks meets the standards of 3.5.1.
From a floor area ratio perspective, Living Oaks fits within the range of
projects located along Oak St. and Mathews St. The proposed building
height of 35 feet is shorter than the recently approved Townhomes at
Library Park (47 feet) and 215 Mathews (38 feet), which are both located
on the same block of Mathews St. The proposed building will also be 87
feet wide, which is in the range of building widths found along Oak and
Mathews (26 feet – 93 feet wide).
Many of the details will break down the mass of the building, relate to
other buildings in the area and provide a pedestrian scale. The proposed
terracotta rain screen panels are 12 inches by 48 inches, which is similar
to the dimensions of stone found on buildings in the area. Terra cotta is a
modern interpretation of brick construction and will relate well with the
existing brick structures in the area without being overly referential. The
windows will be inset 6-7 inches, which will provide strong shadow lines.
Staff Report – Living Oaks, PDP170009
Administrative Hearing, 6-27-2017
Page 14
All of the windows on the third floor will also have a header to relate to the
fenestration pattern of nearby buildings. These details combine to create
a building that is clearly of its own time while still relating to the various
structures in the neighborhood at an appropriate scale.
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.
H. Section 3.5.2(D) – Relationships of Dwellings to Streets and Parking
Every front façade with a primary entrance to a dwelling unit shall face the
adjacent street to the extent reasonably feasible. Each entry feature fronts
onto Oak St. and connects directly to the sidewalk, satisfying this
standard.
I. Section 3.5.2(E) – Residential Setbacks, Lot Width and Size
There is a conflict between the setbacks, lot width, and size requirements
of this code section and the zone specific standards prescribed by Section
4.9 – Neighborhood Conservation, Buffer District. Since the Article 4
standards are more specific, the Article 4 standards prevail and Section
3.5.2(E) does not apply per Section 3.1.2.
J. Section 3.6.6 – Emergency Access
The proposal meets the standards for providing adequate access for
emergency vehicles and emergency service providers as required in
Chapter 9 of the City Code, which satisfies this code section.
3. Compliance with Article 4 of the Land Use Code – Neighborhood
Conservation, Buffer (NCB), Division 4.9:
The project complies with all applicable Article 4 standards as follows:
Staff Report – Living Oaks, PDP170009
Administrative Hearing, 6-27-2017
Page 15
A. Section 4.9(B)(2)(a) – Permitted Uses
Multi-family dwellings up to 4 units per building constructed on a lot that
contained a structure on October 25, 1991 in a street-fronting principal
building is an allowed use subject to administrative review.
B. Section 4.9(E)(1) – Building Design
With the exception of 4.9(E)(1)(g), the proposed building is consistent with
the pertinent elements of this section including walls being constructed
parallel to side lot lines, building entries located along front walls, and
overhangs.
C. Section 4.9(E)(2)(a)(1) – Building Height
The maximum height for all buildings except carriage houses is three
stories. The proposed building is three stories.
5. Recommendation from Landmark Preservation Commission
Since this project is adjacent to the Laurel School Historic District and in close
proximity to several locally designated landmarks, this proposal went to the
Landmark Preservation Commission for a final recommendation on April 19,
2017. The members of the Landmark Preservation Commission voted 5-3 to
recommend approval of the Living Oaks (attachment 6). Committee members
found the proposed building does not adversely affect the historic integrity of the
property and area of adjacency. Other considerations the commission noted
included the project’s:
• Traditional proportions and building modules
• Similar massing to historic context
• Historically scaled materials
• Historic window patterns
• Architectural forms similar to adjacent historic context
• Similar pedestrian scale to that of the area of adjacency
6. Findings of Fact/Conclusion:
In evaluating the request for the Living Oaks Project Development Plan, Staff
makes the following findings of fact:
Staff Report – Living Oaks, PDP170009
Administrative Hearing, 6-27-2017
Page 16
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 3.2.2(K)(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 is equal to or better than a proposal that
would meet the code.
C. The Modification of Standard to Section 4.9(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 is equal to or better than a proposal that
would meet the code.
D. The Modification of Standard to Section 4.9(D)(5) 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 is equal to or better than a proposal that
would meet the code.
E. The Modification of Standard to Section 4.9(D)(6)(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 is equal to or better than a proposal that
would meet the code.
F. The Modification of Standard to Section 4.9(D)(6)(c) 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 is equal to or better than a proposal that
would meet the code.
G. The Modification of Standard to Section 4.9(D)(6)(d) 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 is equal to or better than a proposal that
would meet the code.
Staff Report – Living Oaks, PDP170009
Administrative Hearing, 6-27-2017
Page 17
H. The Modification of Standard to Section 4.9(E)(1)(g) 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 is equal to or better than a proposal that
would meet the code.
I. The Project Development Plan complies with relevant standards of Article 3 –
General Development Standards, provided the modification to Section
3.2.2(K)(1)(a) is approved.
J. The Project Development Plan complies with relevant standards located in
Division 4.8 Neighborhood Conservation, Medium Density (NCM) of Article 4 –
Districts, provided the modification to Sections 4.9(D)(1), 4.9(D)(5), 4.9(D)(6)(b),
4.9(D)(6)(c), 4.9(D)(6)(d), and 4.9(E)(1)(g) are approved.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of Living Oaks, PDP170009.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Zoning & Site Vicinity Map
2. Applicant’s Modification of Standard Requests
3. Living Oaks Planning Document Set (Site Plan, Landscape Plan, and
Architectural Elevations)
4. Planning & Zoning Board Minutes – December 15, 2016
5. Walking Distance Exhibits for Living Oaks, The Summit, and College 830
6. Landmark Preservation Commission - April 19, 2017 Minutes - Excerpt for Living
Oaks