HomeMy WebLinkAboutSUNRISE RIDGE, SECOND FILING - MAJOR AMENDMENT - MJA180002 - REPORTS - RECOMMENDATION/REPORT� �������r���� �����a`�� ����ii�g 1Vfa�c�r �4mer�dr�en�
May 30. 2�18
PROJECT NAME
SUNRISE RIDGE, SECOND FILING, MAJOR AMENDMENT, # MJA 180002
STAFF
Ted Shepard, Chief Planner
PROJECT INFORMATION
This is a request to amend the Sunrise Ridge, Second Filing, Final
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Plan such that there would be a change in housing type on all seven
lots from single family detached dwellings to two-family dwellings
(duplexes). This would be in an increase in the number of units from
seven to 14 which results in a density increase from 1.4 to 2.7 dwelling
units per gross acre. The Major Amendment includes a Request for
Modification to raise the density from the allowable maximum of 2.00
to 2.77 dwelling units per gross acre. There is no replat associated
with this request.
The Major Amendment also includes a Request for Modification of
Standard to reduce the side yard setbacks on all interior lot lines. In
addition, there is a Request for Modification to reduce the rear yard
setback on Lots Two and Three.
The site contains 5.04 acres and is located along the west side of
Strauss Cabin Road, approximately one-half mile south of East
Harmony Road. The parcel is bordered by the Willow Brook
Subdivision (Observatory Village) on the west and Sunrise Ridge First
Filing on the north, and Old Oak Estates on the south. The zoning is
U-E, Urban Estate.
APPLICANT: Mr. David Houts
Houts Development and Construction
5102 Daylight Court
Fort Collins, CO 80528
OWNERS: Houts Development and Construction LLC
3721 Precision Drive, #314
Fort Collins, CO 80528
Sunrise Ridge LLC
c/o Lee R. and Debra S. Reep
5102 Daylight Court
Fort Collins, CO 80528
Page 1
• �
��.. �i,°.a��' N�t��ti�.' �-�":TA'-s�1'e"i�' �w'd�ci��"a,r r�a'��r`��li'D��""��`
�ici�!' .�o, 20' S
Lee R. and Debra S Reep
Kelly D. Smith
5102 Daylight Court
Fort Collins, CO 80528
David E. and Joanne P. Taggart
4038 Stoney Creek Drive
Fort Collins, CO 80525
RECOMMENDATION: Approval of the three Requests for Modification of Standard and the
Major Amendment.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Two-family dwellings are permitted in the Urban Estate zone subject to administrative
review. The three Requests for Modification comply with the applicable criteria of Section
2.8.2(H)
COMMENTS
1. Background:
The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows:
N: H-C; Existing and Developing Multi-Family (Brookfield Subdivision — marketed as
Morningside Townhomes)
S: U-E; Old Oak Estates (six lots on 4.98 acres)
E: FA-1 (County); Vacant — Fossil Creek Reservoir Inlet Ditch
W: L-M-N; Existing Single Family Attached (Willowbrook Subdivision — marketed as
Observatory Village)
The site was originally part of a large farm. Approximately 30 years ago, six lots were split off
from the farm as part of the Adler Exemption while under the jurisdiction of Larimer County.
These lots consisted of five 5-acre lots and one 10-acre lot and developed as single family
homes within a semi-rural setting. All lots fronted on County Road 7, a section line road,
which is now re-named in the City as Strauss Cabin Road. The subject site is the southerly
one-half of the former 10-acre lot of the Adler Exemption.
While still in Larimer County, all six lots in the Adler Exemption were included in the boundary
area of the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan jointly adopted by the City and Larimer County
in 1999. The result of this sub-area plan is that the lots within the Adler Exemption be placed
into the Urban Estate zone district.
The 10-acre lot formed the northerly portion of the Adler Exemption and was purchased by a
developer for the purpose of developing in two phases with the extension of Rock Creek
Drive from the west acting as the dividing line. Phase One is located north of Rock Creek
Page 2
� �w � ... , ., `��� �' "p�,�F-r; ���,.��,� �;k,�����c�,�;;�,,�
6�Tay �d7, ����
Drive and became Sunrise Ridge First Filing which was annexed and zoned Urban Estate in
July of 2005.
Phase Two is Sunrise Ridge Second Filing which was annexed and zoned Urban Estate in
February of 2006.
Sunrise Ridge First Filing was approved on October 12, 2006 and consisted of 12 lots. Five
of these lots were designated for two-family dwellings, also known as a"duplexes," allowing
for 10 dwelling units. The remaining seven lots were limited to single family detached
dwellings allowing for a total of 17 dwelling units.
Sunrise Ridge Second Filing was approved on November 21, 2007 and consisted of seven
lots on 5.04 acres and is located on the south side of Rock Creek Drive. These lots remain
vacant at this time and are the subject of this Major Amendment.
Sunrise Ridge Second Filing was approved with two Modifications:
• A Modification to Section 4.2(D)(2)(a) was granted to allow a reduction in the
minimum required lot width from 100 feet to 50 feet for Lots 2— 6 only.
• A Modification to Section 4.2(D)(2)(d) was granted to allow a reduction in the
minimum required side yard setback from 20 feet to 10 feet but only for the south side
of Lot 1 and the north side of Lot 2.
These Modifications are being carried forward and are included in the request for the subject
Major Amendment except for the north side of Lot 2— see request to further reduce from 10
feet to 0 feet.
In August of 2008, the subdivision to the south, Old Oak Estates, was approved for six lots on
4.98 acre resulting in a density of 1.2 dwelling units per acre.
In November of 2012, Sunrise Ridge First Filing was approved for a Major Amendment and
Replat. (See attachment for reference.) This project resulted in an increase in the number of
approved dwelling units from 17 to 24. Also, the project increased the number of approved
two-family dwellings (duplexes) from five (ten dwelling units) to 12 (24 dwelling units) allowing
all lots to become eligible for a two-family dwelling. The request included slightly reducing
the lot sizes on Lot One and Lot Five. The project also adjusted the side yard setbacks on
Lots 1,2,4,5, 7 and 10 and the front yard setback on Lot 7. Consequently, four Modifications
were granted:
• An increase in density from 2.00 to 2.76 dwelling units per acre;
• A decrease in minimum lot size for two lots from .5 to .47 and .45
acres;
• A reduction in the side yard setback of less than 20 feet on six lots;
• A reduction in the minimum lot width from 100 to 75 feet on one lot.
In general, the subject Major Amendment represents an approximate mirror image of Sunrise
Ridge 1 st Filing as it was amended and replatted in 2012. These changes represent a
response to conditions that have fundamentally shifted since the adoption of the Fossil Creek
Reservoir Area Plan (1999) and the annexations and initial zoning of Sunrise Ridge 1st and
2nd Filings in 2005/2006. Whereas in 2005/2006, the objective was to provide estate lots in
Page 3
• �!a��,�7rk��� i�¢h'�i..6''.��� ��I�l��e'i1�� !'i'F'Ya.'fbaL��� r`-Cat�G�t`�Y.:��B�`'�d.�d
%�%c'3}/ �i, 2� � �i
a prototypical Urban Estate setting, the current objective is to provide two-family dwellings
within a context that has become more urban/suburban.
2. First Modification — Urban Estate Maximum Allowable Density
A. The standard at issue — Section 4.2(D)(1)(a):
(a) "Overall average density shall not exceed two (2) dwelling units per gross acre.
The existing approved plan consists of seven dwelling units on 5.04 acres resulting in
a density of 1.39 dwelling units per gross acre.
The applicant is requesting 14 dwelling units on 5.04 acres resulting in a density of
2.77 dwelling units per gross acre. This is an increase of seven dwelling units.
B. ApplicanYs Justification:
The applicant has provided written justification that refers to the purpose statement of the
Urban Estate zone district. This purpose statement is repeated here:
Purpose. The Urban Estate Disfricf is intended fo be a setting for a predominance of
low-density and large-lot housing. The main purposes of this District are to
acknowledge fhe presence of the many existing subdivisions which have developed in
fhese uses that function as parts of the community and to provide additional locations
for similar developmenf, typically in transitional locations between more intense urban
development and rural or open lands.
Change in conditions. The applicant contends that since the adoption of the Land Use
Code in 1997, the adoption of the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan in 1999 and the
annexation of the subject parcel in 2006, conditions have significantly changed in the
general vicinity. For example, the applicanYs narrative indicates that the subdivision to the
west, Observatory Village, is zoned L-M-N, Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood, with a
mix of housing types and a gross density of 4.57 dwelling units per acre. Similarly, the
subdivision to the north of Sunrise Ridge First Filing, Morningside Village, is zoned H-C,
Harmony Corridor, with an approximate overall gross density of 7.00 dwelling units per
acre.
Major roadways. There is no development to the east as this area is characterized by the
Fossil Creek Reservoir Inlet Ditch. The two adjoining streets are Strauss Cabin Road, a
section line road classified as a two-lane arterial street, and Rock Creek Drive classified
as a collector street.
Buffering between Subdivisions. The subdivision to the south is Old Oak Estates, which,
as noted, is zoned Urban Estate and features six lots on 4.98 acres. Sunrise Ridge 2�d
and Old Oak Estates are separated by the following:
• North side of Old Oak Estates: 30-foot wide sanitary sewer easement for a length
of 345 feet along the entire north property lines of Lots 2 and 3 and the westerly 35
feet of Lot 5.
Page 4
• �a'a. �r,,.<s� ,"d'�brd.�J'.�„�� �°"`�;�!"x� "✓�ac4,u.: r�a7i�3';if�Fx;�,ri„
Ma y 30, ��a �?' �3
• South side of Sunrise Ridge 2"d: 30-foot wide sanitary sewer easement located
within Tract A behind Lots 2 and 3 and 37-foot sanitary sewer and drainage
easement along the entire south property lines of Lots 4 and 5.
As can be seen, between the easements on both subdivisions, there is a buffer that
ranges in width from 37 to 60 feet.
Harmony Corridor Development To the north of Sunrise Ridge 1 St Filing, between Strauss
Cabin Road and the Fossil Creek Reservoir Inlet Ditch, (the southwest corner of Harmony
Road and Strauss Cabin Road) an apartment complex is under construction. Referred to
as Harmony 23, this project consists of 368 apartments on 23 acres. The proximity of this
project relative to Sunrise Ridge 2�d Filing reflects the radical change in zoning intensity
within the one-mile corridor along Strauss Cabin Road between Kechter Road on the
south and Harmony Road on the north.
Due to surrounding development and conditions, Sunrise Ridge Second Filing no longer
epitomizes the vision of an Urban Estate subdivision. The proposed density, while slightly
higher than 2.00 dwelling units per acre, is still below neighboring subdivisions to the north
and west and roughly comparable to Old Oak Estates to the south.
The major thrust of the applicant's justification is that any Urban Estate character that
once defined the general vicinity has been significantly diminished over the past 21 years
(the Land Use Code and Structure Plan Map were adopted in 1997). Within this area,
there are no properties exhibiting the typical characteristics of rural residential, rural small
farm or rural ranchette within one-quarter mile of the site. The area is characterized by
semi-rural houses (U-E), suburban houses (L-M-N) and urban development (H-C), not
rural.
C. Staff Evaluation and Finding of Fact:
The size and scale of the surrounding subdivisions speak to the predominant
urban/suburban character of the area. Both Observatory Village (zone L-M-N) and
Morningside Village (zoned H-C) are still in the process of reaching full build-out.
Ultimately, both projects are zoned and vested for the following:
Observatory Village — L-M-N, 517 dwelling units on 113 acres = 4.57 d.u./acre;
Morningside Village — H-C, 298 dwelling units on 37 acres = 8.05 d.u./acre.
Both projects include a mix of housing types including single family detached, single
family attached and multi-family. In addition, Staff finds that there is little, if any, rural-
like character within the surrounding area.
Both Sunrise Ridge First Filing and Old Oak Estates are zoned U-E and include the
following:
Sunrise Ridge First Filing — U-E, 24 lots on 8.7 acres = 2.77 d.u./acre;
Old Oak Estates — U-E, 6 lots on 4.98 acres = 1.2 d.u./acre.
Page 5
� ; �;w ���� ��e . ��
��.:..ya�;s� :;�-�,�:�,�,� ��la:�� ��a��,r e�a�r�era���r��
�,�?��r 3�, �t� � �
As proposed, the density of 2.77 dwelling units per acre is significantly lower than the
two adjacent projects, comparable to Sunrise Ridge 1St Filing and slightly higher than
Old Oak Estates. Staff finds that Sunrise Ridge 2"d, as amended, retains the
established character and ambiance that is distinctive within the general vicinity.
In compliance with Section 2.8.2(H), Staff finds that the proposed increase in density
from 2.00 to 2.76 dwelling units per gross acre is not detrimental to the public good
and does not diverge from the standards of the Land Use Code except in a nominal,
inconsequential way when considered from the perspective of the entire development
plan and will continue to advance the purposes of the Land Use Code as contained in
Section 1.2.2.
3. Second Modification — Urban Estate Required Minimum Side Yard Setbacks —
Portions of All Interior Side Lot Lines:
A. The standard af issue — Section 4.2(D)(2)(d):
"(d) Minimum side yard width shall be twenty (20) feet."
The existing approved plan is silent (except for the Modification approved in 2007) as to side
yard setbacks relying instead on enforcement to be applied at the time of building permit
review on a lot-by-lot basis. This is because in 2006, the applicant did not have a building
product envisioned but was simply anticipating a market for single family detached dwellings
on generic estate Iots.Plea
The current applicant is requesting that for all seven lots,ll of these side yard setbacks be
reduced for all or a portion of the length of the side yard. The following table summarizes this
request:
Lot Requested °/, of Side Required 20' Modification
Setback
2 N pl 0' 100% ,* 10'
S I 15' 50% 1� 5'
3 N pl 15' 46% 5'
N 115' 29% 5'
4 W pl 15' 56% 5'
E 115" 52% 5'
5 SW pl 15" 50% 5'
NE 110" 49% 10'
6 S pl 10' S0% 10'
N 115' 49% 5'
7 S 115' 50% 5'
'"A 10-foot side yard setback was granted by Modification in 2007.
B. Applicant's Justification:
As can be seen by the table, with one exception, the modifications occur on the front one-half
of the lot. This is due to the lots fronting on a cul-de-sac resulting in the lots being pie-
shaped. Placing a rectangular building on a lot shaped like a wedge creates a challenge the
Page 6
•
�� r�s ���e .� r�'�� � ;:' �-,��Arrg �l,�3'�,�c�r Aar��aac�me�t
r r :
closer the building is to the front property line. Also noted is that all affected side yard
setbacks are internal to the subdivision and do not adjoin public right-of-way.
Between Lots 1 and 2, the requested modified side yard setback occurs for 100% of the
length of the building envelope and for Lot 2, the side yard setback is 0'. These conditions
are mitigated by the fact that these two property lines are separated by a 20-foot wide
dedicated Drainage and Utility Easement. The result is that instead of 40 feet between two
buildings, there will be 30 feet.
The applicant has provided an exhibit that shows the relationship between the building
envelopes and the side lot lines. The areas shaded in gray represent the condition of the
side yard setbacks affected by the Modification and how these areas are generally angled
due to the difference between the shape of the lots and the shape of the buildings.
The proposed side yard setbacks, and the resulting separation between buildings at their
narrowest point — closest to the street is as follows:
Separation Between Buildings:
Lots 1 and 2
Lots 2 and 3
Lots 3 and 4
Lots 4 and 5
Lots 5 and 6
Lots 6 and 7
30-feet
30-feet
30-feet
30-feet
20-feet
30-feet
The applicant contends that given the size and scale of the entire subdivision, and the size of
the lots relative to the surrounding area, that these reductions in side yard setbacks will not
be visible or impactful to the public. For the angled conditions, the effect is miniscule. For
the others, there will remain at least 30 feet between structures with one exception where this
separation will be 20 feet. This is comparable to Sunrise Ridge First Filing. For these
reasons, the applicant seeks to justify the Modification under the nominal and
inconsequential provision.
C. Staff Evaluation and Finding of Fact:
Staff finds that the visual character of Sunrise Ridge Second Filing is not impacted by these
proposed side yard setbacks. The average lot size is 23,749 square feet (.54 acre) which
exceeds the minimum requirement of 21,780 square feet (.50 acre). Despite the reduced
side yard setbacks, Sunrise Ridge Second Filing will continue to be perceived as a spacious,
large-lot neighborhood that complements and retains the character of the surrounding area.
Staff, therefore finds that in compliance with Section 2.8.2(H), the proposed reductions in 11
side yard setbacks are not detrimental to the public good and do not diverge from the
standards of the Land Use Code except in a nominal, inconsequential way when considered
from the perspective of the entire development plan and will continue to advance the
purposes of the Land Use Code as contained in Section 1.2.2.
Page 7
• .�.L„,-.�.��t ��`'S!`�'..T�,(u� .����X:^C�� d�U'��!'LY�ii1d`� d41�a'G�;��`a�1i�?�i��iti
f'V�r�y ��. ,�di78
4. Third Modification — Urban Estate Required Minimum Rear Yard Setback— Lot 2 and 3:
A. The standard at issue — Section 4.2(D)(2)(c):
"(c) Minimum depth of the rear yard shall be twenty-five (25) feet."
B. ApplicanYs Justification:
The applicant explains that this reduction in lot depth by five feet is primarily due to the narrowness
of the lot caused by being pie-shaped and is necessary to accommodate the proposed building
envelope. Also, the applicant indicates that these two rear yards adjoin Tract A, a drainage and
utility easement that also acts as open space. Since the required minimum rear yard front setback
is 25 feet, the proposed 20-foot rear yard setback would not appear out of character with the
neighborhood.
C. Staff Evaluation and Finding of Fact:
Tract A ranges in width between 90 and 115 feet behind Lots 2 and 3. This tract acts as an open
space buffer between Sunrise Ridge Second Filing and Observatory Village. In fact, on
Observatory Village side of Tract A is Willowbrook First Filing Subdivision Parcel G which is
dedicated as "open space, utility, drainage and landscape" consisting of 3.51 acres and maintained
by the Observatory Village H.O.A. Between these two Tracts, the reduction of 5-feet in rear yard
setback would appear negligible.
Staff, therefore, finds that in compliance with Section 2.8.2(H), the proposed reduction in the
minimum required rear yard setback on Lots 2 and 3 is not detrimental to the public good and does
not diverge from the standards of the Land Use Code except in a nominal, inconsequential way
when considered from the perspective of the entire development plan and will continue to advance
the purposes of the Land Use Code as contained in Section 1.2.2.
5. Neiqhborhood Compatibilitv:
A neighborhood meeting is not required due to two-family dwellings being permitted in the Urban
Estate zone subject to Administrative Review.
6. Conclusion and Findinqs of Fact:
In evaluating the request for Sunrise Ridge Second Filing Major Amendment, Staff makes the
following findings of fact:
A. The land use, two-family dwelling, is permitted in the Urban Estate zone subject to
administrative review.
B. The Major Amendment continue to comply with the land use standards and development
standards of the Urban Estate zone district with three exceptions.
C. A Request for Modification of Standard to Section 4.2(D)(1)(a) to allow an increase in the
overall average density from 1.39 to 2.77 dwelling units per gross acre has been
reviewed and evaluated and found to not detrimental to the public good, and would not
Page 8
� �
���.��r.r-, �¢ e�'uC��� ,�''�,° �-��i'�� f4�`�a��?r" ��dea�C�rTl��at
�'!���� 3�, �� 18
diverge from the standards of the Land Use Code except in a nominal, inconsequential
way when considered from the perspective of the entire development plan and will
continue to advance the purposes of the Land Use Code as contained in Section 1.2.2,
D. A Request for Modification of Standard to Section 4.2(D)(2)(d) to allow 11 side yard
setbacks to have less than the required minimum side yard width of 20 feet has been
reviewed and evaluated and found to not detrimental to the public good, and would not
diverge from the standards of the Land Use Code except in a nominal, inconsequential
way when considered from the perspective of the entire development plan and will
continue to advance the purposes of the Land Use Code as contained in Section 1.2.2
E. A Request for Modification of Standard to Section 4.2(D)(2)(c) to reduce the minimum
rear yard setback on Lots 2 and 3 from 25 to 20 feet has been evaluated and evaluated
and found to not detrimental to the public good, and would not diverge from the standards
of the Land Use Code except in a nominal, inconsequential way when considered from
the perspective of the entire development plan and will continue to advance the purposes
of the Land Use Code as contained in Section 1.2.2.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the three Requests for Modification and Sunrise Ridge
Second Filing Major Amendment, #MJA180002.
ATTACH M ENTS
1. Vicinity Map
2. Aerial Map
3. Zoning Map
4. ApplicanYs Request for Modifications
5. Site Plan
6. Sunrise Ridge 2�d Filing — Plat of Record
7. Sunrise Ridge 2"d Filing — Site and Landscape Plan of Record
8. Sunrise Ridge 1St Filing — Exhibit for Reference
Page 9
� N
ry.,....._ .... . -,.. �::
�
�^^�.
�unrise Ridge Secand
Filing Major Amendment
. _ . Le Fever Dr � _, ,., U
_
_ I .� � . �:
_ _._.___
J ❑I I Y�� ...__. . . � .� \`� ,
.... _.. {.:�: �.
� .. °' II I I I.. _.._ ' �
�
r ( - �
��PrecisionDr. �U�� ��ii��i�Ii��1.i�I . ��I �� ._� � �.��� � �}
_..._ .. i
__ _. _ __�...__. � -� .. � � � �� � �� � ��:_ ��1 ��\ C�
� I� �Steelhea � St� � � ,; . � ._. �� �-�..j �:� , N ��
_ _. _ __.___ I � � �II.._ I ::::I �\�'1��
II Il_ � � � I.. . I� �I � r� �� ��'
� i i 1.. ..i r n-�. .�_ ,... �� Q
� .. � �, �I[1lI��I�i11u_J� [ � � �
� . __ � .) ,
'^-~ . _. _, Rock Creek Dr � _� �_ _ _-� ����1 �, �
. 1 I
: :. .. � . I I I� � 1 I
(., I[, a �
.. . :. , � IVI yager Ln , ; , %/. , }
, ` / � r
_ J� _�.I I II I J� _ l f� ` �G� 1
. � , r
, . . , � I �_ � in . .... o .. � _... I \� tii �... �.�ir � \ \ f��.
_. � � �, I � . � � }.._ � ' . O��
;: _ _. i�� � _ '° i N_ ... ...� �, _ ` , ; ;
� ::, _ ` ..� � e._ _
� � ���� � . �., �
.�, . ' j
�: rol,- � i l _� � I I I� E I T I I l ��_1_
_ _ I�
. . ' Galileo Dr �, ,\\ I
'•_: . .-. �N�I.. I� � � � � �.��.�.� � �_�,��� _ _ _ _ \�� .._J
L .
� �l _� I I I I ..<
a�I I`�I��IIIIIIII�� �, � � ,
_ . .. —
Observato Dr
�F'oe�sil 12idge High achool' � i �� � �oeseNatory �r� � � �
� �� I� � I I I��l�l ) I I 1 I 1 o I� r _._ . �_
, I� �,ii�;��i��r�iij��� �. � ( l IJ I I� �
_.
� I.
� Cassiopeia ln 3 I I_. ). I I� '; �
I,
I JIIIII�'lly �', �� �
_ _ _�
1 inch = 600 feet
� _� ,
�.
'+-._--- ---- -..
� _ ��
I� �
� \� �s�:�
� ,
�,� � ..... ��� � : �
SITE
�"�=� �. °� I I I��� � �_ �� �,� � I l�l �_�� � � � I
� _ . .:; .. _ ,\� ��\ I I -_Big Dipper Dr ..
`. Big DiPPe��� � --
. � � _ � ---
1 �, ,, _ ,.
ii_i��
. ,., ,o<< , �� ,:
, � e< ,�.
_..
_ S�� �� � ' _. i � � .�� � � � .. �. � ���Ve��PP `� � ���..���_�� �.� .�- � �� �
_ I __
I� �
d \\ ` ` �
�'''� ,� m � I � `, Kepler � _..._ . __ _ � 4 �
^ , _..
;� � �I I , , , � �
� � � � �� �.
� ° � � �� I I � � I� � , � 1- �� � � � 1 �.: � o ; � ,� ��,
� _ ,.
,, ` � I � Full Moon Dr
�. .- ; ° __._,; �� .�� 1 I;�� I � � I� I I!��1��c� I1��� � �. . _ _ �
Fq��h Ridge Higfi SCh4o1 � Eclipse Ln �., .,
� �' � I I I; �_ I_� � � I( I-- � a
_
�__ 1 1 _�I, I f�� � i � I I I I I l_�) �
' �- � k � _ . ..__. _. ._. . .,v
_ .
. ; � �
«� �:� •� - � Cosmos Ln
�, �_ (I�,�I. IIIII �II����_���� I
__..... _ __...
� _ . . ... Kechter Rd =--=--
a ��
��`R�
��
� �.=
I_ __.�,.� � _
, �.—. __.._ �.._.�..
_ E Couni
� : __ =_
,I_ LI^ . _
��( I I.I I I IIoiI w�,dE,� I �.�. .
9 cree < . . . I , I Y. .�.I' \
II I � k�'� '- ` R• P : Zach Elementa � o�..1 I � _�� I I I.I J I_� ...1. � �'�: . �
I..._ I r � i;-1 \ adiant ark � ry !i T I I I � � I//, _. �
_ '�' \`� /. { 1 ... rn I I. I I.._. oO.lklshaa w/Wal I I���
�
�,
I I � �� II � ; //
, ,
m __ _.; �.
�,;, � � , ,
� � �'
, �
I � � � � �� t l
� l Cp �....,,. Muskrat Creek Dr ...,.;., .._.....� e71. I I ��, �� I...I � I I I._.I. , �
I ppe�s ' i I I I � I I I I� � � .,. v
�
� ` �� I _ I o � : - a
, � I � � �
t. I l � , I % `
} p�/n � _ I ` � ', ,. . , ` � � � ` , � i
, _ 1 0 ,, � � 1
� I 9a� � I �, / \ \..
, � .. \ I N
r U � t � �
' .. ........_.. � . ...
� , . I ' / � . � �.. � �, `i �"�.. � II ( �
,-.. 'I� . ..... .. .. . . .
�
. ��.Y✓� � � �� � � �, � ' / . � .
% �
� , , � �r
a e _ _ °'' i \ _l,. �.� �*, _�__.� � � ? � i �
_._.. �--
� ��
, � � i,y p� � � � � . � i .�. � � � � � ,. A % >� `� � ,-`� �_ _.__ .. I .. .._. � .._.
,.
.
� , ,
, I
Road 36�
� .w
�it of �
y .
�
ort o � ns
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
�
Planning. Development and
Transportation Services
Planning Services
281 North College Ave
P O Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 8��_�512 � �[,�tCi
970.221.6750
970.224.6134 - far
tcqov com%c�irrPntplannir�U
Kendra Carberry, City of Fort Collins Administrative Hearing
Officer
Ted Shepard, Chief Planner �
May 30, 2018
Sunrise Ridge 2�d Filing — Major Amendment — Phone Call
Log
For the consideration of Sunrise Ridge 2�d Filing, Major Amendment, the City of
Fort Collins Planning Department has received three phone calls since the mailing
of the notification letter. These two calls are summarized as:
On May Wednesday, May 23, 2018, Staff received a phone call from Mr.
Jeffrey Squires who resides in Morningside Village, which is located north of
Sunrise Ridge 1St Filing. He expressed concerns about adding traffic onto
Strauss Cabin Road, especially given that the new apartment complex, H-
23, was recently approved and is under construction. Staff responded that
the addition of seven dwelling units did not require a Transportation Impact
Study or Memorandum and does not trigger any additional public
improvements
2. On Thursday, May 24, Staff received a call from Mrs. April Hutchison who
resides in Old Oak Estates which is located directly south of Sunrise Ridge
2"d Filing. Mrs. Hutchison expressed concern about the distance between
her house, Lot 2, Old Oak Estates, 4012 Big Dipper Drive, and the Lot 4 of
Sunrise Ridge 2�d Filing. She also expressed concern about the potential
value of the future dwellings relative to her house value. Staff replied that
there is a 30-foot sewer easement on the north side her lot and a 37-foot
wide easement (divided between a 20-foot sewer easement and a 17-foot
drainage easement) thus creating a 67-foot separation where no buildings
can be placed. Staff also clarified that potential home values is not a
criterion by which a land development proposal can be reviewed.
3. On Wednesday, May 30, 2018, Staff received two�none calls one each
from Mrs. Hope Shurigar and from Mr. Tyler Shurigar who reside in Old Oak
Estates located directly south of Sunrise Ridge 2"d Filing on 4030 Big
Dipper Drive. Ms. Shurigar expressed concems about the available amount
of parking and that parking may spill out onto public streets. She also
expressed concern about the growing amount of traffic on Strauss Cabin
Road and that the recently approved H-23 apartment complex will add traffic
on the roads within the immediate vicinity. Mr. Shurigar expressed his
opposition to the request to increase the density. Staff replied that each
dwelling will have a two-car garage and a two-car driveway. Further, the
amount of traffic on Strauss Cabin Road is expected to increase due to the
H-23 apartment complex. Consequently, the developer is responsible for
widening a segment of Strauss Cabin Road and financially participating in
two other public improvements: the signalization of Harmony Road and
Strauss Cabin Road and improvements to the Strauss Cabin / Kechter Road
intersection in the form of a separate right tum lane. Regarding the request
for increased density, this request will be forwarded to the Hearing Officer
for consideration.