HomeMy WebLinkAboutRIVER MODERN - PDP - PDP150005 - DECISION - FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & DECISION1
CITY OF FORT COLLINS
TYPE 1 ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING
FINDINGS AND DECISION
HEARING DATE: June 25, 2015
PROJECT NAME: River Modern Project Development Plan (PDP)
CASE NUMBER: PDP#150005
APPLICANT: Roger Sherman, BHA Design
1603 Oakridge Drive
Fort Collins, CO 80525
OWNER: Lynne L. Adams
P.O. Box 140
Freedom, WY 83120
HEARING OFFICER: Marcus A. McAskin
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The River Modern Project Development Plan (PDP) is a proposed
infill project located generally north of E. Stuart Street and the Indian Hills neighborhood, south of
Spring Creek, west of the Spring Meadows development and east of the Brookhaven development.
The proposed project includes fifteen (15) single-family attached dwellings (duplexes), for a total
of thirty (30) residential units, and also includes the proposed re-purposing of the existing single
family detached unit and garage on the subject property as a pre-school/child care center1 (River
Song Waldorf). River Song Waldorf currently operates in close proximity to the subject property
at 906 E. Stuart Street.
The subject property consists of approximately 4.36 acres.
The subject property is zoned Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (L-M-N) in which both
single-family attached dwellings and child care centers are permitted subject to administrative
review and approval.
The Application proposes to replat the subject property as the River Modern Subdivision and
proposes a total of 30 residential lots ranging between 2,137 sq. ft. and 3,503 sq. feet; an access,
utility and drainage easement consisting of approximately 2.085 acres (designated as Tract A on the
1 River Song Waldorf constitutes a child care center within the definition set forth in Section 5.1.2 of the Land Use
Code.
2
preliminary plat); and one lot of approximately 18,789 sq. ft. (Lot 31) on which the proposed child
care center would be located. A final plat will be required at the time of Final Plan submittal.
As part of its PDP submittal, the Applicant is requesting a Modification of Standard to Land Use
Code Section 3.5.2(E)(2), Setback from Nonarterial Streets, requesting to reduce the building front
setback on specifically identified lots from the required fifteen (15) feet to between nine (9) and ten
and one-half (10.5) feet.
The Applicant is also requesting a Modification of Standard to Land Use Code Section
3.6.2(N)(1)(c), Street-Like Private Drives, to allow an approximate 82’ segment of the private drive
in the vicinity of the proposed child care center to not have a detached sidewalk or on street parking.
BACKGROUND: The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows:
Direction Zone District Existing Land Uses
North Low Density Mixed-Use
Neighborhood (L-M-N) Multi-family residential
South Low Density Residential (R-L) Single-family residential
East Low Density Mixed-Use
Neighborhood (L-M-N)
Multi-family residential (Spring
Meadows), and intermittent detached
single-family residential along Stuart
Street.
West Low Density Mixed-Use
Neighborhood (L-M-N)
Multi-family residential (Brookhaven),
and intermittent detached single-family
residential along Stuart Street.
SUMMARY OF DECISION: Approved, with conditions.
ZONE DISTRICT: Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood District (L-M-N)
HEARING: The Hearing Officer opened the hearing at 5:30 p.m. on Thursday, June 25, 2015, in
Conference Rooms A-D, 281 North College Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado.
EVIDENCE: Prior to or at the hearing, the Hearing Officer accepted the following documents as
part of the record of this proceeding:
(1) Submittal Checklist
(2) Development Review Application Form
(3) Transportation Development Review application form dated March 5, 2015
3
(4) Utility Plans Checklist
(5) Ecological Characterization Study Report dated October 22, 2014
(6) Statement of Planning Objectives dated March 3, 2015
(7) Hazardous Materials Impact Analysis dated March 3, 2015
(8) Traffic Impact Study by Sustainable Traffic Solutions, Inc. dated March 3, 2015
(9) Memorandum from Sustainable Traffic Solutions, Inc. dated April 17, 2015
(10) Subsurface Soil Investigation dated February 26, 2015
(11) Preliminary Drainage Report dated April 20, 2015
(12) Subdivision Plat dated February 23, 2015
(13) Utility Plans dated May 15, 2015
(14) Photometric Plan dated May 15, 2015
(15) Grade Plane Calculations (all units) dated May 20, 2015
(16) Site Plan dated May 14, 2015
(17) Landscape Plan dated May 14, 2015
(18) Engineering Variance Request No.3- Stuart Street Access Spacing, February 27, 2015
(19) Driveway Spacing Variance Exhibit- May, 2015
(20) Color 3D Images dated June 16, 2015 (7 pages)
(21) Staff Round Number 1 Comments dated March 27, 2015 with Applicant's Responses
(22) Staff Round Number 2 Comments dated May 11, 2015 with Applicant's Responses
(23) Modification Request- LUC 3.6.2(N)(1)(c) dated May 21, 2015
(24) Alternative Compliance Request- LUC 3.2.2(C) dated May 21, 2015
(25) Modification Request with Exhibits 1 and 2- LUC 3.5.2(E)(2) dated May 21, 2015
(26) Architectural Elevations dated June 8, 2015
(27) City of Fort Collins PowerPoint presentation title River Modern – Administrative Public
Hearing and dated June 25, 2015
(28) PowerPoint Presentation title River Modern PDP Public Hearing Slideshow provided by
developer
(29) Request for Modification of Standard – 3.6.2(N)(1)(c) – Detached Sidewalks and On-Street
Parking dated May 21, 2015
(30) Request for Modification - Section 3.5.2 (E)(2) – Residential Setback from Non Arterial
Street dated May 21, 2015
(31) Document titled Exhibit 1 River Modern Proposed Site Plan 9ft min Front Façade Setbacks
dated May 21, 2015
4
(32) Document title Exhibit 2 River Modern Alternative Site Plan 15ft min Front Façade Setbacks
dated May 21, 2015
(33) Neighborhood Meeting Notes from December 18, 2014
(34) Neighborhood Meeting Notes from April 1, 2015
(35) Half Story Analysis Building A1
(36) Half Story Analysis Building A2
(37) Half Story Analysis Building A3
(38) Half Story Analysis Building B1
(39) Half Story Analysis Building B2
(40) Half Story Analysis Building C1
(41) Half Story Analysis Building C2
(42) Letter from Kendra and Gerald Bartley dated June 18, 2015
(43) Email from Michael Braun dated December 18, 2014
(44) Email from Loretta Dawes dated June 9, 2015
(45) Pictures from Loretta Dawes titled Taken Spring 2015 – Concern about flooding.
(46) Email from Laura Gilette dated May 14, 2015
(47) Email from Meg K. Parmer dated April 8, 2015
(48) Letter from Robert W. and Elisabeth S. Springer (not dated)
(49) Email from Marie Twarogowski dated April 2, 2015
(50) Email from Sandra Zwemke dated June 25, 2015
(51) Email from Stephen Presson dated June 25, 2015
(52) Letter from Juan Villasenor (not dated)
(53) Letter from Pam and Max Oesterle with an Open Letter Regarding the Negative Impact to
Neighbors with 36 signatures
(54) Letter with pictures from Max and Pam Oesterle (not dated)
In addition, the City’s Comprehensive Plan, the Land Use Code, and the formally promulgated
polices of the City are all considered part of the record considered by the Hearing Officer in this
proceeding.
A copy of the Planning Department Staff Report prepared for the above-referenced Application is
attached to this decision as ATTACHMENT A and is incorporated herein by reference.
TESTIMONY: The following persons testified at the June 25th hearing:
From the City: Seth E. Lorson, AICP, City Planner
5
Joe Olson, P.E., City Traffic Engineer
Wes LeMarque, P.E., City Stormwater Engineer
Kelly Kimple, City Environmental Planning
From the Applicant/
Owner:
Lynne L. Adams (property owner, addressed Hearing Officer
during public comment portion of hearing)
Mark Goldberg, Goldberg Properties, Inc.
Kyle J. Henderson, KJH Commercial, LLC
Roger Sherman, BHA Design Incorporated
Justin Larson, Principal Architect, VFLA Architects
Jeff Hansen, AIA Associate, VFLA Architects
Lucia Liley, Liley Rogers & Martell LLC
Joseph Henderson, Sustainable Traffic Solutions, Inc.
Mollie Simpson, BHA Design Incorporated
Mike Oberlander, P.E., LEED AP, Interwest Consulting Group
From the Public: Max Oesterle, 846 E. Stuart
Meg K Parmer, 1724-A Brookhaven
Linda Vrooman, 912 Cheyenne
Kendra Bartley, 821 Apex Dr, Unit D
Stefan Gessler, 1229-C Brookhaven Ct.
Becky Praamsma, 906 E. Stuart St.
Loretta Dawes, 1724 Brookhaven, Unit E
Erika Ashauer, 3751 Eclipse Lane
Rhonda Nolan, 1718C Spring Meadow Ct
Devin Ferrey, 345 E. Mountain Ave.
Roberta Springer, 1916 Seminole
Elizabeth Springer, 1916 Seminole
Pam Oesterle, 846 E. Stuart
Gerard Bartley, 821 Apex #D
Shem Grubon, 902 E. Stuart St.
Kathleen Quinn, 1012 E. Prospect Rd
Juan Villasenor, 1530 Mathews St.**
Harl Hoppler, 1921 Sequoia St.**
** did not testify, but requested copy of this Findings and Decision.
FINDINGS
1. Evidence presented to the Hearing Officer established the fact that notice of the public
hearing was properly posted, mailed and published.
6
2. Based on testimony provided at the public hearing and a review of the materials in the record
of this case, the Hearing Officer concludes as follows:
A. The Application complies with the applicable procedural and administrative
requirements of Article 2 of the Land Use Code.
B. The Application complies with the applicable General Development Standards
contained in Article 3 of the Land Use Code, including specifically Sections 3.2.1
(Landscaping and Tree Protection), Section 3.2.2 (Access, Circulation and Parking),
Section 3.2.3 (Solar Access, Orientation, Shading), Section 3.2.4 (Site Lighting),
Section 3.4.1 (Natural Habitats and Features), Section 3.5.1 (Building and Project
Compatibility), Section 3.5.2 (Residential Building Standards), Section 3.5.3 (Mixed
Use, Institutional and Commercial Buildings), as specifically applied to the proposed
child care center, and Section 3.8.4 (Child Care Center Regulations), as more
specifically set forth in pages 5 – 10 of the Staff Report attached hereto as
ATTACHMENT A.
C. The Application complies with the request for alternative compliance with Section
3.2.3 in that it protects solar access to seventy percent (70%) of the structures, which
accomplishes the purpose of the standard better than a plan that provides the required
65% solar-oriented lots.
D. The Application complies with the applicable Low Density Mixed Use (L-M-N)
District standards contained in Article 4, of the Land Use Code, including Section
4.5(B)(2)(a) which permits single family attached as a permitted use subject to
administrative review, 4.5(B)(2)(c) which permits child care centers as a permitted
use subject to administrative review, Section 4.5(D)(1)(a) which establishes a
minimum density of 3/DU per net acre of residential land for developments
containing 20 acres or less, Section 4.5(D)(1)(b) which establishes a maximum
density of 9/DU per gross acre of residential land, and Section 4.5(E)(3) which states
that the maximum residential building height shall be two and one-half (2.5) stories.
The Application proposes that all 30 residential dwelling units will be 2.5 stories, in
compliance with this standard. The Application proposed that the child care center
will be 1.5 stories, in compliance with Section 4.5(E)(2)(c).
3. The Application’s satisfaction of the applicable Article 2, 3 and 4 requirements of the Land
Use Code is sufficiently detailed in the Staff Report, a copy of which is attached as
ATTACHMENT A and is incorporated herein by reference.
4. Based on testimony provided at the public hearing and a review of the materials submitted
to the Hearing Officer is this case, the Hearing Officer concludes that the Modification of
Standard (for Section 3.5.2(E)(2) of the Code, as requested by the Applicant) meets the
applicable requirements of Section 2.8.2(H) of the Code. Specifically, the Hearing Officer
finds as follows:
A. The Modification of Standard (the “Modification”) requested by the Applicant is to
Section 3.5.2(E)(2) of the Land Use Code (“Setback from Nonarterial Streets”),
which states as follows:
7
3.5.2(E)(2) Setback from Nonarterial Streets. The minimum setback of every
residential building and of every detached accessory building that is
incidental to the residential building shall be fifteen (15) feet from any public
street right-of-way other than an arterial street right-of-way, except for those
buildings regulated by Section 3.8.30 of this Code [Multi-Family Dwelling
Development Standards, not applicable here], which buildings must comply
with the setback regulations set forth in Section 3.8.30. Setbacks from garage
doors to the nearest portion of any public sidewalk that intersects with the
driveway shall be at least twenty (20) feet.
B. The Hearing Officer specifically finds that the requested Modification is not
detrimental to the public good.
C. The Hearing Officer further finds that the Modification satisfies Section 2.8.2(H)(4)
of the Code – the Application as submitted will not diverge from the standards of the
Land Use Code except in a nominal, inconsequential way when considered in the
context of the entire development plan, and will continue to advance the purposes of
the Code as contained in Section 1.2.2, including but not limited to the following:
i. Section 1.2.2(B) – encouraging innovations in land development and
renewal;
ii. Section 1.2.2(J) – improving the design, quality and character of new
development; and
iii. Section 1.2.2(L) – encouraging the development of vacant properties within
established areas.
The reduction of the front yard setbacks for Units 5 – 14 and Units 23 – 30 from
Cherokee Drive is a nominal and inconsequential change when considered from the
perspective of the entire PDP. The reduced setbacks affect the units identified above
which are internal to the project, while the PDP provides increased setbacks from
neighboring properties both on the east and west boundaries of the project. The
Hearing Officer finds that the reduced setbacks along Cherokee Drive will: (1)
reduce the impacts on existing neighborhoods to the east and the west of the subject
property; and (2) have the added advantage of reducing possible overflow resident
and visitor parking (by increasing the length of the driveways for Units 5-14 and 23
– 30 thereby resulting in additional overall parking for the site).
5. Based on testimony provided at the public hearing and a review of the materials submitted
to the Hearing Officer is this case, the Hearing Officer also concludes that the Modification
of Standard (for Section 3.6.2(N)(1)(c) of the Code, as requested by the Applicant) meets
the applicable requirements of Section 2.8.2(H) of the Code. Specifically, the Hearing
Officer finds as follows:
A. The Modification of Standard (the “Modification”) requested by the Applicant is to
Section 3.6.2(N)(1)(c) of the Land Use Code (“Street-Like Private Drives”), which
states as follows:
8
3.6.2(N)(1)(c) Street-Like Private Drives. A street-like private drive shall be
allowed as primary access to facing building or to parcels internal to a
larger, cohesive development plan, or for the purposes of meeting other
requirements for streets. Street-like private drives shall be designed to
include travel lanes, on-street parking, tree-lined border(s), detached
sidewalk(s) and crosswalks.
. . .
(emphasis added; balance of section omitted).
B. Specifically, the Applicant is requesting that the standard be modified to allow
Cherokee Drive, to have an attached sidewalk (not detached, as required by the
standard) from the sidewalk’s intersection with Stuart Street and extending
approximately 82’ north along the east side of Cherokee Drive, at the same width as
required by the Land Use Code. In addition, the Applicant is requesting that on-
street parking not be required for this same 82’ segment of Cherokee Drive.
C. The Hearing Officer specifically finds that the requested Modification is not
detrimental to the public good.
D. The Hearing Officer further finds that the Modification satisfies Section 2.8.2(H)(1)
of the Code – the Application 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. The
Hearing Officer finds that the evidence shows that installing a detached sidewalk in
this location may require the demolition of the existing garage which may be utilized
by River Song Waldorf as additional classroom space in the future and would reduce
the size of the front play yard of the child care center. The Hearing Officer finds that
the Application, with the requested modification, will provide for adequate, safe and
direct access to Stuart Street, the Spring Creek Trail, the proposed single-family
attached dwellings, and the proposed on-site child care center.
DECISION
Based on the findings set forth above, the Hearing Officer hereby enters the following ruling:
A. The River Modern Project Development Plan (PDP#150005) is approved for the subject
property as submitted, subject to conditions set forth below.
B. The Article 3 Modifications (Request for Modification of Section 3.5.2(E)(2) and Section
3.6.2(N)(1)(c) of the Land Use Code) are approved for the subject property.
C. The Applicant shall submit a final plan for the subject property within three (3) years of the
date of this decision. If Applicant fails to submit a final plan to the City within said three (3)
year period, this PDP approval shall automatically lapse and become null and void in
accordance with Section 2.2.11(C) of the Code.
9
D. In accordance with Section 2.2.11(C) of the Code, the PDP shall not be considered a site
specific development plan and no vested rights shall attach to the PDP.
E. The Applicant shall cooperate with all adjoining neighbors along the east and west property
lines of the subject property to establish fence heights ranging between four feet (4’) and six
feet (6’).
F. The Applicant shall provide an ecological survey to the City’s Environmental Planner, which
survey: (1) will be prepared by a professional qualified in the area of wildlife biology; (2)
shall document the existence of active Red-tailed or Swainson’s Hawk nests on the entire
4.36 acre subject property; and (3) shall be subject to the review and approval by the City.
The survey shall be completed and provided to the City at least sixty (60) calendar days prior
to the commencement of any construction activity on the subject property.
G. If Red-tailed or Swainson’s Hawks are determined to be nesting on the subject property, the
development of the subject property shall be subject to the requirements of Section
3.4.1(N)(5)(c) of the Land Use Code, including the requirement that a temporary limits of
development line of a four hundred and fifty foot (450’) radius shall be established from all
active nest sites during the period from February 15 to July 15 of the first year of a multi-
year construction project.
DATED this 10th day of July, 2015.
___________________________________
Marcus A. McAskin
Hearing Officer
10
ATTACHMENT A
Staff Report
River Modern (900 E. Stuart)
Project Development Plan
PDP #15005
(15 pages – attached)
ITEM NO _______1__________
MEETING DATE ___June 25, 2015___
STAFF ___Seth Lorson____
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: River Modern (900 E. Stuart) - Project Development Plan, PDP #150005
APPLICANT: Roger Sherman, BHA Design
1603 Oakridge Drive
Fort Collins, CO 80525
OWNER: Lynne L. Adams
P.O. Box 140
Freedom, WY 83120
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
This is a request for consideration of a Project Development Plan (P.D.P.) for 15 two-family
dwellings, 30 units in total, and a child care center (River Song Waldorf). The project is located
at 900 East Stuart Street on 4.36 acres abutting Spring Creek.
The property currently has one single-family dwelling which is proposed to be converted to a
child care center. The northern approximate one acre of land is dedicated to the Spring Creek
floodplain and natural feature buffer. The site is zoned Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood
(L-M-N) in which two-family dwellings and child care centers are permitted subject to
administrative review and approval (Type 1 Hearing).
The project had two neighborhood meetings to discuss the proposal and concerns from the
neighborhood. Principally, the neighbors have expressed concern about density and its potential
impacts such as parking and traffic. Also, compatibility of the design with the neighborhood and
the Spring Creek corridor has been cited as a concern. The notes from both meetings are
attached.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approval of Modification of Standard (Division 2.8) to reduce the building front
setback from a non-arterial street from the required 15 feet (Sec. 3.5.2(E)) to
between 9 and 10.5 feet.
Approval of Modification of Standard (Division 2.8) to vary from the design
requirements of a street-like private drive (Sec. 3.6.2(N)(1)(c)) to allow a portion of
the drive to not have a detached sidewalk and not have on-street parking.
Approval of River Modern - Project Development Plan, PDP #150005.
River Modern PDP #150005
Administrative Hearing, June 25, 2015
Page 2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Staff finds that the proposed River Modern - Project Development Plan complies with the
applicable requirements of the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code (LUC), more specifically:
The P.D.P. complies with process located in Division 2.2 – Common Development
Review Procedures for Development Applications of Article 2 – Administration.
The P.D.P. complies with relevant standards located in Article 3 – General
Development Standards, with the exception of the following modification requests.
The P.D.P. complies with a request for a Modification of Standard (Division 2.8) to
reduce the building front setback from a non-arterial street from the required 15 feet
(Sec. 3.5.2(E)) to between 9 and 10.5 feet.
The P.D.P. complies with a request for a Modification of Standard (Division 2.8) to
vary from the design requirements of a street-like private drive (Sec. 3.6.2(N)(1)(c))
to allow a portion of the drive to not have a detached sidewalk and not have on-street
parking.
The P.D.P. complies with relevant standards located in Division 4.5 Low Density
Mixed-Use District (L-M-N) of Article 4 – Districts.
COMMENTS:
1. Background:
The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows:
Direction Zone District Existing Land Uses
North Low Density Mixed-Use
Neighborhood (L-M-N)
Multi-family residential
South Low Density Residential (R-L) Single-family residential
East Low Density Mixed-Use
Neighborhood (L-M-N)
Multi-family residential (Spring Meadows), and
intermittent detached single-family residential
along Stuart Street.
West Low Density Mixed-Use
Neighborhood (L-M-N)
Multi-family residential (Brookhaven), and
intermittent detached single-family residential
along Stuart Street.
River Modern PDP #150005
Administrative Hearing, June 25, 2015
Page 3
2. Compliance with Article 4 of the Land Use Code – Low Density Mixed-Use
Neighborhood (L-M-N):
The project complies with all applicable Article 4 standards as follows:
A. Section 4.5(B) – Permitted Uses
The proposed land use of two-family attached dwellings and child care centers
are permitted in the L-M-N District subject to administrative review.
B. Section 4.5(D) – Land Use Standards
1) Density. Section 4.5(D)(1) requires that a development of less than 20 acres
shall have a density between 3 dwelling units per net acre and 9 dwelling
units per gross acre.
Section 3.8.18, provides the method for calculating residential density.
The project is proposing 30 dwelling units on 4.36 acres for a density
of 7.63 dwelling units per gross acre – below the maximum of 9
dwelling units per gross acre.
Much discussion has taken place regarding density and how it relates
to the existing development in the area. The following image was
900 East
Stuart
River Modern PDP #150005
Administrative Hearing, June 25, 2015
Page 4
created by staff to illustrate the density of neighboring multi-family
projects.
Brookhaven: 5.35 DU/AC
New Prospect: 6.2 DU/AC
Pinnacle: 7.86 DU/AC
Spring Meadows: 6.43 DU/AC
River Modern (proposal): 7.6 DU/AC
2) Mix of Housing. Section 4.5(D)(2) requires a minimum of 3 housing types -
with no single housing type constituting more than 80% or less than 5% of the
total number of dwelling units - for any development over 20 acres.
The proposed development is less than 20 acres, therefore this
standard is not applicable.
River Modern PDP #150005
Administrative Hearing, June 25, 2015
Page 5
3) Small Neighborhood Parks. Section 4.5(D)(6) requires a park to be within 1/3
mile of 90% of proposed dwellings in project greater than 10 acres.
The proposed project is less than 10 acres, therefor this standard is
not applicable. However, Indian Hill Park is slightly west and across
Stuart Street and Spring Creek Trail is connected to the development
with an access trail.
4) Streets and Blocks. Sections 4.5(E)(1)(a & b) require that new development
create an interconnected street system that bounds blocks no greater than 12
acres in size.
The proposal is only 4.36 acres in size and is confined by abutting
developments the east and west that do not have street stubs that
could be connected to.
5) Nonresidential and Mixed-Use Buildings. Section 4.5(E)(2) only applies to the
child care center which is going into the existing single-family dwelling with
little alteration to the structure.
6) Maximum Residential Building Height. Section 4.5(E)(3) requires a maximum
height of two and one-half (2.5) stories.
Section 3.8.17 outlines the method for measuring building height, and
Section 5.1.2 defines Story, half. The proposed residential
development provides a maximum building height of 2.5 stories.
Much discussion about compliance with building height requirements
has occurred between the applicant, staff, and the neighborhood. The
applicant has provided detailed exhibits that show how the height was
determined (attached).
7) Design Standards for Multi-Family Dwellings… Section 4.5(E)(4) only applies
to multi-family dwellings. The proposal is for 15 two-family dwellings and
therefore this standard does not apply.
3. Compliance with Article 3 of the Land Use Code – General Development
Standards
The project complies with all applicable General Development Standards except the noted
modification of standards; with the following relevant comments provided:
A. Division 3.2 – Site Planning and Design Standards
1) 3.2.1 Landscaping and Tree Protection:
Section 3.2.1(D)(2) requires street trees to be provided in the detached
sidewalk parkway at an average spacing of 30 to 40 feet apart. The project is
River Modern PDP #150005
Administrative Hearing, June 25, 2015
Page 6
providing street trees along Stuart Street and along the street-like private
drive (Cherokee Drive) at the required intervals as shown in the landscape
plan. (See attached landscape plan.)
2) 3.2.2 Access, Circulation and Parking:
Section 3.2.2(K)(1)(a) requires attached dwellings (including two-family
dwellings) to provide parking spaces based on the number of bedrooms per
dwelling unit. The proposed project has 30 3-bedroom units which are
required to provide 2 parking spaces per unit for a total of 60 parking spaces.
Each unit has a two-car garage providing the minimum number of parking
spaces required. In addition, each driveway (except for three – units 18, 19 &
20 – due to a siting shift south, out of the Spring Creek natural buffer) has
space for two more vehicles (but cannot be formally counted toward the
parking requirement because it would preclude the garage spaces) and on-
street parking provides another 21 parking spaces. Functionally, in total,
there are 135 parking spaces.
Section 3.2.2(K)(1)(b) requires child care centers to provide two parking
spaces per three employees or one parking space per 1,000 square feet,
whichever is greater. The building is 3,024 square feet which requires three
parking spaces. But, the plan is to have up to 9 employees in the long term
so the parking requirement is six spaces ([9/3]=3*2=6). There are six spaces
proposed for the child care center.
The child care center is providing a drop-off area on the east side of the
building which will be accessed by a circulation loop that enters on Cherokee
Drive and exits on a one-way private drive to the east. This will effectively
remove drop-off and pick-up queuing from Stuart Street.
3) 3.2.3 Solar Access, Orientation, Shading
Section 3.2.3(C) requires that at least 65% of the proposed lots must conform
to the definition of a “solar-oriented lot”.
Per Section 5.1.2, the definition of solar oriented lot follows:
Solar-oriented lot shall mean:
(1) a lot with a front lot line oriented to within thirty (30) degrees of a true
east-west line. When the lot line abutting a street is curved, the "front lot line"
shall mean the chord or straight line connecting the ends of the curve. For a
flag lot, the "front lot line" shall mean the lot line that is most parallel to the
closest street, excluding the "pole portion of the flag lot"; or
(2) a lot which, when a straight line is drawn from a point midway between the
side lot lines at the required front yard setback to a point midway between the
River Modern PDP #150005
Administrative Hearing, June 25, 2015
Page 7
side lot lines at the required rear yard setback, is oriented to within thirty (30)
degrees of true north along said line; or
(3) a corner lot with a south lot line oriented to within thirty (30) degrees of a
true east-west line, which south lot line adjoins a public street or permanently
reserved open space; provided, however, that the abutting street right-of-way
or open space has a minimum north-south dimension of at least fifty (50) feet.
For the purposes of this definition, "permanently reserved open space" shall
include, without limitation, parks, cemeteries, golf courses and other similar
outdoor recreation areas, drainage ditches and ponds, irrigation ditches and
reservoirs, lakes, ponds, wetlands, open spaces reserved on plats for
neighborhood use and other like and similar permanent open space.
The proposed project cannot meet the above definition and the applicant is
requesting alternative compliance (request attached) per Section 3.2.3(F):
(F) Alternative Compliance. Upon request by an applicant, the decision
maker may approve an alternative site layout that may be substituted in
whole or in part for a plan meeting the standards of this Section.
(1) Procedure. Alternative compliance plans shall be prepared and submitted
in accordance with submittal requirements for plans as set forth in this
Section. The plan shall clearly identify and discuss the modifications and
alternatives proposed and the ways in which the plan will better accomplish
the purpose of this Section than a plan which complies with the standards of
this Section.
(2) Review Criteria. In approving an alternative plan, the decision maker shall
find that the proposed alternative plan accomplishes the purposes of this
Section equally or better than a plan which complies with the standards of
this Section.
In reviewing the proposed alternative plan, the decision maker shall take into
account whether the alternative design enhances neighborhood continuity
and connectivity, fosters nonvehicular access, and preserves existing natural
or topographic conditions on the site.
The applicant justifies the alternative compliance request due to the
north/south orientation of the lot. In addition to the 12 lots that are solar-
oriented, an additional 9 lots/buildings will have roof planes that are south
facing which bring the total amount of solar-oriented lots or solar-oriented
buildings to 70%. Additionally, the site plan provides for enhanced
neighborhood continuity and connectivity through sidewalks and paths that
connect to the Spring Creek Trail, providing an access easement permitting
the public to cross from Stuart Street.
River Modern PDP #150005
Administrative Hearing, June 25, 2015
Page 8
Section 3.2.3(E) requires that the proposed structures do “not to cast a
shadow onto structures on adjacent property greater than the shadow which
would be cast by a twenty-five-foot hypothetical wall located along the
property lines of the project between the hours of 9:00 am and 3:00 pm, MST,
on December 21.” The shadow study (attached) shows that the proposed
buildings do not cast a greater shadow than indicated above.
4) 3.2.4 Site Lighting
The purpose of this section is to ensure that the exterior lighting function and
security needs of the project are being met in a way that does not adversely
affect the adjacent properties or neighborhood. The proposed lighting plan
(attached) complies with this section in terms of illumination levels and
concealed light sources.
B. Division 3.4 – Environmental, Natural Area, Recreational and Cultural Resource
Protection Standards
1) Section 3.4.1(E) requires a 100 foot buffer zone from Spring Creek. The site plan
places the northernmost buildings outside of the 100 foot buffer zone and the
Spring Creek floodplain. The proposed concrete trail connecting the development
to Spring Creek Trail is permitted within the buffer zone.
2) Section 3.4.1(I) requires that projects in the vicinity of natural habitat corridors,
such as Spring Creek, be designed to complement the visual context of the
natural habitat. The applicant has designed the four structures placed along the
buffer area to be smaller in terms overall height and utilize architectural
techniques such as shed roofs creating multiple planes and use of “natural
looking” stone and colors to blend into the site. Additional native landscaping has
been added to the buffer zone to provide screening and complement the visual
character.
C. Division 3.5 – Building Standards
1) 3.5.1 Building and Project Compatibility
Section 3.5.1(C) requires that buildings shall be either similar in size and
height or, if larger, be articulated and subdivided into massing that is
proportional to the mass and scale of other structures adjacent to the subject
property. The compatibility of the proposed project with the adjacent
properties has been thoroughly analyzed. The applicant has provided building
sections and perspective renderings showing the mass and scale of the
River Modern PDP #150005
Administrative Hearing, June 25, 2015
Page 9
proposal as it compares to the two abutting multi-family developments
(Brookhaven and Spring Meadows) and the abutting single-family houses
along Stuart Street. Although the proposal has taller buildings than those
adjacent, they are within the scale of the larger neighborhood context. The
buildings along Stuart Street and Spring Creek are both reduced in height
and scale relative to the internal buildings. The applicant has asked for a
setback modification (discussed below) which effectively moves the taller
internal building further away from the property line (approximately 40 feet).
Section 3.5.1(D) provides that elements of the development plan shall be
arranged to maximize the opportunity for privacy by the residents of the
project and minimize infringement of the privacy of adjoining land uses. The
project proposes a four to six foot high fence along the east and west
property line. The applicant has proposed that the height of the east and west
fences will depend on cooperation with the abutting neighbors. This approach
lends to compatibility with the existing neighborhood and is a condition of
approval.
Section 3.5.1(G) requires a special review process for buildings that exceed
40 feet in height. No building in the proposed development exceeds 40 feet in
height, therefore this section is not applicable.
2) 3.5.2 Residential Building Standards
Section 3.5.2(C) requires any development containing fewer than 100 two-
family units shall have at least three different types of housing models. The
proposal includes seven different housing models contained within 15 total
structures.
Section 3.5.2(D) requires every front façade with a primary entrance to a
dwelling unit to face the adjacent street and connect to a walkway that
connects to a street sidewalk no further than 200 feet away. The proposed
northernmost units along Spring Creek (units 15 – 22) face onto a sidewalk
along the natural buffer area. The farthest units are approximately 200 feet
along the sidewalk from the street sidewalk on Cherokee Drive. Units also
connect to the concrete trail that leads to Spring Creek Trail. Additionally, an
exception to the standard allows a primary entrance to be up to 350 feet
along a sidewalk from a street sidewalk if it qualifies as a major walkway
spine. The sidewalk that units 15 – 22 face onto qualifies as a major walkway
spine in that it is 5 feet in width, the outdoor corridor dimension in which the
sidewalk located is greater than 35 feet in width, and it is visible from a public
trail.
River Modern PDP #150005
Administrative Hearing, June 25, 2015
Page 10
Section 3.5.2(E)(2) requires a minimum building setback of 15 feet from any
public street right-of-way. Although the proposed access street is a street-like
private drive, Section 3.6.2(N)(1)(d) indicates that it shall not be permitted if it
prevents or diminishes compliance with any other provision of this Code. The
applicant has requested a modification to the building setback standard from
the required 15 feet to between nine and 10 feet. Please see Modification of
Standards section of this report for further discussion.
Section 3.5.2(E)(3) requires a minimum side yard setback of five feet and
rear yard setback of eight feet. The proposed buildings are setback between
five and 21’-1” feet from the side lot lines and between 11 and 23 feet from
the rear lot lines.
Section 3.5.2(F) prevents garage doors from dominating residential
streetscapes by requiring them to be side or rear loaded, or recessed behind
the front façade of the building, and be less than 50% of the building frontage.
However, subsection four exempts buildings from these standards if they are
facing onto a major walkway spine. As noted above, units 15 – 22 face onto a
major walkway spine and they have garage doors that face onto the
residential streetscape. Because of the exemption to the garage door
standard in Section 3.5.2(F)(4), the proposed northernmost units comply with
this standard.
3) 3.5.3 Mixed-Use, Institutional and Commercial Buildings
This section applies only to the child care center which is utilizing the existing
single-family dwelling on the property. Therefore, many of the development
and design standards do not apply. However, the child care center is
providing sidewalks on all sides of its lot and connecting walkways to the
street sidewalks on Cherokee Drive and Stuart Street.
Section 3.8.4 requires child care centers to have 40 square feet of indoor
space per child and 1,200 square feet of outdoor play area (<15 children) or
75 square feet per child for 33% of the child capacity (>15 children). The child
care center plans to have 42 children maximum in the long term requiring
1,680 square feet of indoor space and 1,040 square feet of outdoor space.
The plan proposes 3,024 square feet of indoor space and 4,956 square feet
of outdoor space.
D. Division 3.6 – Transportation and Circulation
River Modern PDP #150005
Administrative Hearing, June 25, 2015
Page 11
1) Section 3.6.2(N) allows street-like private drives as internal access to a
development which does not promote cut-through traffic. Street-like private drives
shall be designed to include travel lanes, on-street parking, tree-lined borders,
detached sidewalks and crosswalks. Cherokee Drive, the main access to the
development, is proposed as a street-like private drive. For the most part the
street-like private drive meets the design criteria. The applicant is requesting a
Modification of Standard for 82 feet of the southernmost section of the drive that
is not providing a detached sidewalk along the east side nor on-street parking on
either side. Please see Modification of Standards section of this report for
further discussion.
4. Compliance with Division 2.8 - Modification of Standards
A. The applicant has requested two modifications to General Development
Standards in Article 3. 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,
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
River Modern PDP #150005
Administrative Hearing, June 25, 2015
Page 12
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).
A. Request for Modification to Section 3.5.2(E)(2) which requires a minimum
building setback of 15 feet from any public street right-of-way. Although the
proposed access street is a street-like private drive, Section 3.6.2(N)(1)(d)
indicates that it shall not be permitted if it prevents or diminishes compliance with
any other provision of this Code.
The applicant is proposing a building setback of between nine and 10 feet for the
9 buildings and 18 units at the interior of the development site (units 5-14 and 23-
30).
The applicant asks that the Hearing Officer find that the requested modification
be granted on the grounds that it is not detrimental to the public good and 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.
The proposed project could physically accommodate the front setback standard,
however the design reduces the front setback enough to provide approximately
20 feet of driveway space for each unit affected by the modification. The design
accomplishes two things: 1) provides enough space to park two cars in the
driveway so as to reduce potential spillover parking; and 2) moves the proposed
building further away from the property line, reducing the impact on the existing
neighborhood to the east and west. Please see attached the applicant’s request
for modification of standard.
B. Request for Modification to Section Section 3.6.2(N) which allows street-like
private drives as internal access to a development which does not promote cut-
through traffic. Street-like private drives shall be designed to include travel lanes,
on-street parking, tree-lined borders, detached sidewalks and crosswalks.
Cherokee Drive, the main access to the development, is proposed as a street-
like private drive.
The applicant is requesting a Modification of Standard for 82 feet of the
southernmost section of the drive that is not providing a detached sidewalk along
the east side nor on-street parking on either side.
River Modern PDP #150005
Administrative Hearing, June 25, 2015
Page 13
The applicant asks that the Hearing Officer find that the requested modification
be granted on the grounds that it is not detrimental to the public good and 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.
The request for an attached sidewalk on the east side of Cherokee Drive is to
provide space for the existing structure (garage) which is being converted into
classroom space for the child care center. And, on-street parking is not being
provided due to sight distance constraints and potential traffic/parking conflicts.
As proposed, the majority of the sidewalks in the development are detached with
on-street parking and adequate parking is being provided to serve the
development. Please see attached the applicant’s request for modification of
standard.
5. Findings of Fact/Conclusion
In evaluating the request for the River Modern - Project Development Plan, PDP #150005, Staff
makes the following findings of fact:
A. The P.D.P. complies with process located in Division 2.2 – Common Development
Review Procedures for Development Applications of Article 2 – Administration.
B. The P.D.P. complies with relevant standards located in Article 3 – General
Development Standards, with the exception of the following modification requests.
C. The P.D.P. complies with a request for a Modification of Standard (Division 2.8) to
reduce the building front setback from a non-arterial street from the required 15 feet
(Sec. 3.5.2(E)) to between 9 and 10.5 feet; in that it is not detrimental to the public
good and will promote the general purpose of the standard equally well or better than
would a plan which complies with the standard by providing more parking in the form
of adequate space in the proposed driveways and greater separation between
proposed buildings and the existing neighborhood, thereby creating greater
neighborhood compatibility in terms of reducing potential spillover parking and
reduced proximity of proposed buildings.
D. The P.D.P. complies with a request for a Modification of Standard (Division 2.8) to
vary from the design requirements of a street-like private drive (Sec. 3.6.2(N)(1)(c))
for 82 feet of the southernmost section of the drive that is not providing a detached
sidewalk along the east side nor on-street parking on either side; in that it is not
detrimental to the public good and will 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., because it will retain
the existing structure on the site, remove site distance constraints for turning
River Modern PDP #150005
Administrative Hearing, June 25, 2015
Page 14
movements to and from Stuart Street and reduce potential automobile conflict with
parked vehicles.
E. The P.D.P complies with the alternative compliance request to provide less than 65%
of lots conforming to the definition of “solar-oriented lot”. The alternative plan that
accomplishes the purposes of this Section equally or better than a plan which
complies with the standards of this Section in that an additional 9 lots/buildings will
have roof planes that are south facing which preserve the potential for solar energy
usage and brings the total amount of solar-oriented lots or solar-oriented buildings to
70%; and enhances neighborhood continuity and connectivity, fosters nonvehicular
access, and preserves existing natural or topographic conditions on the site in that
the plan provides sidewalks and paths that connect to the Spring Creek Trail and
provides an access easement permitting the public to cross from Stuart Street.
F. The P.D.P. complies with relevant standards located in Division 4.5 Low Density
Mixed-Use District (L-M-N) of Article 4 – Districts.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the River Modern - Project Development Plan, PDP #150005,
with one condition:
1. The developer shall cooperate with adjoining neighbors along the east and west property
line to establish fence heights ranging between four and six feet.
ATTACHMENTS:
1) Neighborhood Meeting Notes, December 18, 2014
2) Neighborhood Meeting Notes, April 1, 2015
3) Public Comments
Requested for inclusion by the applicant:
1) Submittal Checklist
2) Development Review Application Form
3) Transportation Development Review application form dated March 5, 2015
4) Utility Plans Checklist
5) Ecological Characterization Study Report dated October 22, 2014
6) Statement of Planning Objectives dated March 3, 2015
7) Hazardous Materials Impact Analysis dated March 3, 2015
8) Traffic Impact Study by Sustainable Traffic Solutions, Inc. dated March 3, 2015
9) Memorandum from Sustainable Traffic Solutions, Inc. dated April 17, 2015
10) Subsurface Soil Investigation dated February 26, 2015
11) Preliminary Drainage Report dated April 20, 2015
12) Subdivision Plat dated February 23, 2015
13) Utility Plans dated May 15, 2015
14) Photometric Plan dated May 15, 2015
15) Grade Plane Calculations (all units) dated May 20, 2015
16) Site Plan dated May 14, 2015
River Modern PDP #150005
Administrative Hearing, June 25, 2015
Page 15
17) Landscape Plan dated May 14, 2015
18) Engineering Variance Request No.3- Stuart Street Access Spacing, February 27, 2015
19) Driveway Spacing Variance Exhibit- May, 2015
20) Staff Round Number 1 Comments dated March 27, 2015 with Applicant's Responses
21) Staff Round Number 2 Comments dated May 11, 2015 with Applicant's Responses
22) Modification Request- LUC 3.6.2(N)(1)(c) dated May 21, 2015
23) Alternative Compliance Request- LUC 3.2.2(C) dated May 21, 2015
24) Modification Request with Exhibits 1 and 2- LUC 3.5.2(E)(2) dated May 21, 2015
Provided by the applicant:
1) Architectural Images (3D) dated June 16, 2015
2) Architectural Elevations (all units) dated June 8, 2015
3) Street Elevations dated June 8, 2015
4) Site Sections dated June 8, 2015
5) Perspective Views dated June 8, 2015
6) Composite Images dated June 8, 2015
7) Shadow Study dated June 8, 2015
8) Half Story Analysis with floor plans dated June 8, 2015
9) Additional information