The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutTALON ESTATES - PDP - 42-05A - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 1 - MODIFICATION REQUEST(1) the plan as submitted will promote the general purpose of the standard, equally well than a plan which complies with the standard. Department: Engineering Issue Contact: Susan Joy Topic: General Number: 13 Created: 3/6/2006 [3/6/06] No comments regarding the modification request. Engineering will be commenting on the PDP development plans. Department: Natural Resources Issue Contact: Doug Moore Topic: General Number: 11 Created: 3/2/2006 [3/2/06] Natural Resources supports this modification. This modification allows the project to meet the buffer requirements of 3.4.l(E). Department: Stormwater-Water-Wastewater Issue Contact: Wes Lamarque Topic: Stormwater Number: 12 Created: 3 / 5/ 2006 [3/5/06] No comments. After the Applicant has provided responses to these comments from Current Planning, without another formal submittal, it will be possible to schedule an administrative public hearing for the near future. If you have any questions regarding these issues or any other issues related to this project, please feel free to call me at 221-6341. Yours Truly, Steve Olt City Planner cc: Susan Joy Doug Moore Wes Lamarque Current Planning file #42-05 Page 4 (1) the plan as submitted will promote the general purpose of the standard equally well or better than a plan which complies with the standard; (2) the granting of a modification would substantially alleviate an existing, defined and described problem of city-wide concern or would result in a substantial benefit to the city by addressing an important community need; (3) by reason of exceptional physical conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional situations the strict application of the standard sought to be modified would result in unusual hardship or exceptional practical difficulties on the property owner; and/or, (4) the plan will not diverge from the standards of the Land Use Code except in nominal, inconsequential way when considered from the perspective of the entire development plan. The Applicant has supported the modification request with the following justifications: This plan as submitted does promote the general purpose equally well or better than a plan without the Tract. Tract A will be made the homeowner's association's responsibility for fencing, maintenance and control. This plan as submitted will not diverge from the Standards of the Land Use Code with respect to public health, safety and welfare and capital (what does this mean?). The first statement is OK, although staff s position is that the reference to "or better" should be dropped. The second statement is really not appropriate to this modification request. There are 14 criteria in Section 1.2.2 of the Land Use Code relating to public health, safety and welfare, and all must be met if this section is to be used. Many of them are not relevant. (Again, where does the reference to capital come from?) The justifications should be: The granting of the modification would not be detrimental to the public good, and that: Page 3 of the proposed development does not exceed two (2) dwelling units per gross acre and the density of the cluster development does not exceed five (5) dwelling units per net acre.) The overall average density is 1.39 dwelling units per acre. Also the area is there, it has just been redirected for wildlife. We could do the wildlife as easements but that would, as you know, just cause more problems. Number: 15 Created: 3/7/2006 [3/7/06] Does the Drainage &, Wildlife Buffer Zone (Tract A) satisfy just the minimum buffer requirements for this property? In essence, could any of the lots be slightly larger? This question is still valid and needs a response. Stewart & Associates Response: We set the buffer zone as required, which was 50 feet from the bank. We can adjust the lot areas but some lots will get bigger and some will get smaller. Number: 16 Created: 3/7/2006 [3/7/06] There are 5 statements in the Applicant's Request for Modification of Standards that appear to be the justifications for a modification: * We are requesting a modification to the lot size being 0.5 acre or larger on Lots 1 through 7. These lots are adjacent to Tract A, which is being used for a wildlife buffer zone and drainage adjacent to the Pleasant Valley & Lake (PV&L) Canal. The wildlife buffer zone is required by the City of Fort Collins. * The proposed individual lot area of Lots 1 through 7 is to be 0.45 acre, more or less. The individual lot area of Lots 1 through 7, if the area of Tract A were included, would be 0.56 acre, more or less. * With Tract A being non -buildable, and also the area between Tract A and the PV&L Canal being non -buildable, these 7 lots will have the appearance of being much larger than the 0.5 acre minimum required. * Before the development of Tract A (?), this project had 3.92 acres for Lots 1 through 7. This area would have created 7 lots with the average area of 0.56 acre, which exceeded the minimum area for this zoning. * The requirement for the wildlife buffer zone and detention tract required that a portion of the lot's area (Lots 1 through 7) be shifted to Tract A. Therefore, Lots 1 through 7 now have an average of 0.45 acre, more or less, and Tract A has an area of 0.75 acre. Per Section 2.8.2(H) of the Land Use Code, 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: Page 2 STAFF PROJECT REVIEW Stewart & Associates c/o Jack Blake 103 South Meldrum Street Fort Collins, CO 80521 d Staff has reviewed your revised submittal for TALON ESTATES, MODIFICATION OF STANDARD - TYPE 1 REVIEW, and we offer the following revised comments: ISSUES: Date: 0411312006 Department: Current Planning Issue Contact: Steve Olt Topic: General Number: 10 Created: 2/23/2006 [2/23/061 Lots 1 through 7, being the topic of discussion for the modification of standard to minimum lot size of 0.50 acre in the UE District, are all shown on the Exhibit Map to be 19,496 square feet (0.45 acre) in size. Yet they visually do not appear to be exactly the same size. Therefore, how much less than the required 1/2 acre minimum lot size could any of these lots be? Has the engineer done any sort of boundary check? This question is still valid and needs a response. Stewart & Associates Response: Steve, have you ever seen the illusion where you are shown a circle, square, rectangle, triangle and a star and you guess which one has the largest area? We have, of course, calculated the lots to be equal. We will check our calculations again. Number: 14 Created: 3/7/2006 [3/7/06] First question needs to be: Does the developer really need 13 lots to make this project feasible? The elimination of just one lot would enable the developer to satisfy the minimum lot size requirement of 1/2 acre in the UE - Urban Estate District. This question is still valid and needs a response. Stewart & Associates Response: Yes, with having to construct all of Falcon Drive adjacent to our site and also constructing 600 feet from Taft Hill to get to this site and with Sherri Wamhoff and Susan Joy trying to STICK this project with escrow for a bridge that is not on this site and will require tearing down a new garage and buying right-of-way to get to the bridge location - yes. Also City Counsel recognized that 0.5 acres eras just a number and that we could go to Planning and Zoning Board to get the area reduced. (Fort Collins Land Use Code 4.l(E) c. Minimum lot sizes may be waived by the Planning and Zoning Board, provided that the overall average density Page 1