Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCITY PARK NORTH - PDP - 26-10 - DECISION - FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & DECISIONProjec Meeth Date: Mf— e2, S, v, e-v Administrative Public Hearing Sign -in PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY Naryie I I Address Phone Email I Y'w- i e-e N3 -rx I � a3 -7-z r w' <e148 cp 04 �o Ao S 6, Vn 2133 S7 -;Ly y 3- lzG83 / cw`^- rr c r-ol e-a - T-6 V S 14 City Park North Subdivision PDP, # 26-10 Administrative Hearing Findings, Conclusions, and Decision December 21, 2010 Page 11 of 11 DECISION The City Park North Subdivision Project Development Plan # 26-10 is hereby approved by the Hearing Officer, including approval of the request for Modification to Applicable Article 4 - District Standards: Section 4.7(D)(2) Density, Section 4.7(E)(4) Dimensional Standards, Section 4.7(E)(5) Dimensional Standards, and Sections 4.7(F)(2)(b)l & 2 Eave Height. The Hearing Officer concludes that the justification for granting the request for modification to Applicable Article 4 — District Standards would not be detrimental to the public good. In addition, 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. Dated this 21 st day of December 2010, per authority granted by Sections 1.4.9(E) and 2.1 of the Land Use Code. Pete Wray Senior City Planner City Park North Subdivision PDP, # 26-10 Administrative Hearing Findings, Conclusions, and Decision December21, 2010 Page 10 of 11 except in a nominal, inconsequential way when considered from the perspective of the entire development plan. 3. Section 4.7(E) (5) Dimensional Standards, as it relates to the maximum building height of the carriage house/garage building on the rear of Lot 3. The requested additional'/2 story of building height, resulting in a 2-story building in relationship with the garage on Lot 2 located to appear as one building, will not deviate any further from a 2-story building that is allowed as part of the approved Frey Street Cottages. On that plan there could be five (5) 2-story buildings similar to what may occur in City Park North. The second story of the carriage house/garage building is not of a substantial size (floor area) in that there will only be a modest sized bedroom and bath at that level. The Hearing Officer agrees with staff and has determined that this plan is equal to the approved plan for the property allowing for two stories. Further, by placing the Lot 3 garage adjacent to and attached to the Carriage House building, the proposed two story height is buffered to some degree. The result is nominal and inconsequential impact when considered from the perspective of the entire development plan. 4. Sections 4.7(F)(2)(b)l & 2 Eave Height, as they relate to the eave heights of the detached garage on Lot 2 and the carriage house/garage building on Lot 3. The requested eave height of the carriage house/garage to be 22'-6" at its highest point (exceeding the allowable 13') and the eave height of the detached garage to be 11'-6" at its highest point (exceeding the allowable 10'), when taken in context with the surrounding neighborhoods, will not have an adverse effect on adjacent properties. These buildings will appear to be one building internal to the development with minimal visual impact to the adjacent properties. The Hearing Officer agrees with staff and has determined that the eave heights on the two (2) buildings are equal to the two (2) buildings that could be built in the approved Frey Street Cottages; and, that the plan as submitted will not diverge from the standards of the LUC 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. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of: • Modification of Standard in Section 4.7(D) (2) Density. • Modification of Standard in Section 4.7(E) (4) Dimensional Standards. • Modification of Standard in Section 4.7(E) (5) Dimensional Standards. • Modifications of Standards in Sections 4.7(F) (2) (b) 1 & 2 Eave Height. • City Park North Subdivision, Project Development Plan - (#26-10). City Park North Subdivisiuo PDP, # 26-10 Administrative Hearing Findings, Conclusions, and Decision December21, 2010 Page 9 of 11 SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS A. The City Park North Subdivision, PDP proposal meets the procedural requirements located in Division 2.1 - General Procedural Requirements, Division 2.2 - Common Development Review Procedures for Development Applications, and Section 2.4 - Project Development Plan located in Article 2 - Administration. B. The City Park North Subdivision, PDP proposal meets the applicable requirements located in Article 3 - General Development Standards. C. The City Park North Subdivision, PDP meets the zone district standards located in Section 4.7 — Neighborhood Conservation, Low Density District, contained in Article 4 — District Standards, with the following exceptions: Section 4.7(D) (2) Density, as it relates to the carriage house/garage building on the rear of Lot 3. The requested 894 square foot building footprint exceeds the allowable 600 square feet, a difference of 294 square feet). The requested overall floor area of the carriage house/garage building is 1,152 square feet, exceeding the allowable 1,000 square feet by 152 square feet. While staff has determined that the proposed single carriage house/garage building is equal to or better than two (2) buildings containing more total floor area and more combined square footage in the building footprints, the Hearing Officer does not support this justification. Rather, the Hearing Officer will support this modification request for the plan as submitted will not diverge from the standards of the LUC 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. 2. Section 4.7(E) (4) Dimensional Standards, as it relates to the eave height of the single-family dwelling relative to the side yard setback on Lot 4. The requested eave height of the east side wall of the single-family dwelling is 25' at a lot line setback of 7' instead of the required 9'. This height is 3' higher than the allowable 22' height at the side yard setback of 7'. The additional 3' of height would be in the form of a triangle that is 6' at its widest point, being right at the 22' height. This building elevation along the east side of the development and would be a distance of about 50' from the nearest adjacent property line and approximately 75' from the nearest building wall on that property. Also, the Larimer No. 2 Canal (irrigation ditch), with new landscaping in addition to what exists, is between this building and the building on the adjacent property. The Hearing Officer agrees with the staff determination in that the additional Y of eave height is equal to a building that would meet the requirement; and, that the plan as submitted will not diverge from the standards of the LUC that are authorized by this Division to be modified City Park North Subdivisiu,rPDP, # 26-10 Administrative Hearing Findings, Conclusions, and Decision December 21, 2010 Page 8 of 11 The requested additional '/z story of building height, resulting in a 2-story building in relationship with the garage on Lot 2 located to appear as one building, will not deviate any further from a 2-story building that is allowed as part of the approved Frey Street Cottages. On that plan there could be five (5) 2-story buildings similar to what may occur in City Park North. The second story of the carriage house/garage building is not of a substantial size (floor area) in that there will only be a modest sized bedroom and bath at that level. Staff has determined that this plan is equal to the approved plan for the property. D. Sections 4.7(F)(2)(b)1 & 2 Eave Height, as they relate to the eave heights of the detached garage on Lot 2 and the carriage house/garage building on Lot 3. The requested eave height of the carriage house/garage to be 22'-6" at its highest point (exceeding the allowable 13') and the eave height of the detached garage to be 11'-6" at its highest point (exceeding the allowable 10'), when taken in context with the surrounding neighborhoods, will not have an adverse effect on adjacent properties. These buildings will appear to be one building internal to the development with minimal visual impact to the adjacent properties. Staff has determined that the eave heights on the two (2) buildings are equal to the two (2) buildings that could be built in the approved Frey Street Cottages; and, that the plan as submitted will not diverge from the standards of the LUC 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. During the public testimony portion of the Hearing, all five of the attending neighbors supported the proposed PDP and request for modifications as a general improvement over the previous submitted Frey Street Cottages project. The questions raised by the attending residents focused on clarification of the proposed size and dimensional aspects of the new buildings and setbacks. In addition, two submitted written correspondence were read by staff. Both letters offered support for the proposed PDP. City Park North Subdivisiuii PDP, # 26-10 Administrative Hearing Findings, Conclusions, and Decision December 21, 2010 Page 7 of 11 (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. " The Applicant has proposed that the modifications of standards would not be detrimental to the public good and that they meet the requirements of Sections 2.8.2(H) (1) and (4) of the LUC. 7. Modification Requests — Staff Analyses: A. Section 4.7(D) (2) Density, as it relates to the carriage house/garage building on the rear of Lot 3. The requested 894 square foot building footprint exceeds the allowable 600 square feet; however, if the carriage house and garage were built separately then the combined footprints could contain 1,200 square feet. The requested overall floor area of the carriage house/garage building is 1,152 square feet, exceeding the allowable 1,000 square feet. However, if the carriage house and garage were built separately then the combined floor areas could be 1,400 square feet. Staff has determined that the proposed single carriage house/garage building is equal to or better than two (2) buildings containing more total floor area and more combined square footage in the building footprints; and, that the plan as submitted will not diverge from the standards of the LUC 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. B. Section 4.7(E) (4) Dimensional Standards, as it relates to the eave height of the single-family dwelling relative to the side yard setback on Lot 4. The requested eave height of the east side wall of the single-family dwelling is 25' at a lot line setback of 7' instead of the required 9'. This height is 3' higher than the allowable 22' height at the side yard setback of 7'. The additional 3' of height would be in the form of a triangle that is 6' at its widest point, being right at the 22' height. This building elevation along the east side of the development and would be a distance of about 50' from the nearest adjacent property line and approximately 75' from the nearest building wall on that property. Also, the Larimer No. 2 Canal (irrigation ditch), with new landscaping in addition to what exists, is between this building and the building on the adjacent property. Staff has determined that the additional 3' of eave height is equal to a building that would meet the requirement; and, that the plan as submitted will not diverge from the standards of the LUC 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. C. Section 4.7(E) (5) Dimensional Standards, as it relates to the maximum building height of the carriage house/garage building on the rear of Lot 3. City Park North Subdivision PDP, # 26-10 Administrative Hearing Findings, Conclusions, and Decision December21, 2010 Page 6 of 11 A. Section 4.7(D) (2) Density, as it relates to the carriage house/garage building on the rear of Lot 3. The Applicant is requesting that the square footage of the building footprint be 894 square feet, exceeding the allowable 600 square feet; and, that the overall square footage of the building be 1,152 square feet, exceeding the allowable 1,000 square feet. B. Section 4.7(E) (4) Dimensional Standards, as it relates to the eave height of the single-family dwelling relative to the side yard setback on Lot 4. The Applicant is requesting that the eave height of the east side wall of the single-family dwelling be allowed to be 25' at a lot line setback of 7' instead of the required 9'. C. Section 4.7(E) (5) Dimensional Standards, as it relates to the maximum building height of the carriage house/garage building on the rear of Lot 3. The Applicant is requesting that the building height of the carriage house/garage (accessory building containing habitable space) be two (2) stories in height instead of the allowed 1-1/2 stories. D. Section 4.7(F)(2)(b)l & 2 Eave Height, as it relates to the eave heights of the detached garage on Lot 2 and the carriage house/garage building on Lot 3. The Applicant is requesting that the eave height of the carriage house/garage be 22'- 6" at its highest point, exceeding the allowable 13'; and, that the eave height of the detached garage be 11'-6" at its highest point, exceeding the allowable 10'. As specified in Section 2.8.2 Modification Review Procedures, (H) (Standards), 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 City Park North Subdivision PDP, # 26-10 Administrative Hearing Findings, Conclusions, and Decision December 21, 2010 Page 5 of 11 4. Compliance with Article 4 of the Land Use Code - Division 4.7 NCL, Neighborhood Conservation, Low Density District: The single-family dwellings on Lots 1, 2 and 3 in the City Park North Subdivision, PDP comply with applicable requirements of the LUC, specifically the NCL - Neighborhood Conservation, Low Density District standards located in Division 4.7 of the LUC located in Article 4 — District Standards. A. Permitted Uses - The applicant has expressed that the intent of the subdivided lots is to create a single-family detached dwelling on each lot and a carriage house dwelling on the rear of one lot. Single-family detached dwellings and carriage houses are a permitted use in this zone district, subject to Administrative (Type 1) Development Review. B. Land Use Standards - The lots proposed on the subdivision plat meet the density standards. Each lot is at least 6,000 square feet in size. At the time of Building Permit, the proposed buildings on all lots will be reviewed to ensure that they satisfy the density requirement of the minimum lot area being equivalent to at least 2-1/2 times the total floor area of the building(s). C. Dimensional Standards - The four proposed lots meet the 40-foot wide minimum lot width. At the time of Building Permit, the proposed buildings will be reviewed to ensure that they meet the setback requirements and building height standards. D. Development Standards - At the time of Building Permit, the proposed buildings will be reviewed to ensure that they meet these standards. 5. Modification to Applicable Article 4 - District Standards Three buildings in this Subdivision, PDP request do not comply with applicable requirements located in Division 4.7 of Article 4 — District Standards. Specifically, they are: A. Lot 2, detached garage B. Lot 3, Carriage house/garage structure C. Lot 4, Single-family dwelling The Applicant has submitted requests for modifications of standards in the following sections of the Land Use Code: City Park North Subdivision PDP, # 26-10 Administrative Hearing Findings, Conclusions, and Decision December 21, 2010 Page 4 of 11 3. Compliance with Article 3 of the Land Use Code — General Development Standards: The City Park North Subdivision, PDP request complies with the applicable requirements located in the General Development Standards of the LUC. A. The Subdivision, PDP is in compliance with Section 3.1.1 Applicability. The applicant has expressed that the future development will be single-family dwellings and one carriage house dwelling, subject to Administrative Development Review. As such, the Subdivision, PDP is required to comply with applicable General Development Standards in Article 3 of the LUC as well as the applicable NCL District Standards in Article 4 of the LUC. B. The Subdivision, PDP complies with the street tree requirement set forth in Section 3.2.1(D) (2) of the LUC. There will be deciduous trees spaced at 30' on - center in the parkway along LaPorte Avenue and at 40' on -center in the parkway along Frey Street. C. The subdivision plat is in compliance with Section 3.3.1 Plat Standards in that: 1) The subdivision plat will be filed and recorded only after having been approved by the Director of Planning, with such approval evidenced in writing on the plat and signed by the City Clerk. 2) No building permit or certificate of occupancy shall be issued for construction of any new principal building or no act which changes the use of any building shall be permitted until the subdivision plat is filed and recorded in the City of Fort Collins. D. The subdivision plat is in compliance with Section 3.3.1(B) Lots in that: 1) The four lots are at least 6,000 square feet in size, the minimum allowed in the NCL - Neighborhood Conservation Low Density District; Lots 1 through 3 have direct vehicular access to a public street and Lot 4 has access to Frey Street along a private drive. Side lot lines are substantially at right angles. 2) The general layout of lots, roads, driveways, utilities, drainage facilities and other services within the proposed lots accomplishes the purpose and intent of the LUC. E. The subdivision plat is in compliance with Section 3.3.1(C) Public Sites, Reservations and Dedications in that: 1) The applicant has dedicated appropriate rights -of way for public streets, drainage easements, utility easements and access easements as needed to serve the area being platted. 2) Reservation of sites for flood control, open space and other municipal uses has been made in accordance with the requirements of the LUC. City Park North Subdivision PDP, # 26-10 Administrative Hearing Findings, Conclusions, and Decision December 21, 2010 Page 3 of 11 FACTS AND FINDINGS This request complies with the applicable requirements of the Land Use Code (LUC), specifically the procedural requirements located in Division 2.1 - General Procedural Requirements, Division 2.2 - Common Development Review Procedures for Development Applications, and Division 2.4 - Project Development Plan located in Article 2 - Administration; applicable standards located in Article 3 - General Development Standards; and, applicable standards located in Division 4.7 - Neighborhood Conservation, Low Density District of Article 4 — Districts. 1. Compatibility with Surrounding Uses: The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows: N: I County I - Industrial; E: NCL Existing NCL - Neighborhood Conservation, Low Density residential; S: NCL Existing NCL - Neighborhood Conservation, Low Density single- family residential with Existing POL - Public Open Lands (City Park) beyond; W: NCL Existing NCL - Neighborhood Conservation, Low Density single- family residential with Existing POL - Public Open Lands (City Park) beyond. The area bounded by LaPorte Avenue on the north, Grandview Avenue on the west, Mountain Avenue on the south, and the Larimer No. 2 Canal on the east has been down -zoned from LMN - Low Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood to NCL - Neighborhood Conservation, Low Density at the behest of the neighborhood. 2. Compliance with Article 2 of the Land Use Code - Administration: This subdivision request complies with the applicable requirements of the LUC, specifically the procedural requirements located in Division 2.1 - General Procedural Requirements, Division 2.2 - Common Development Review Procedures for Development Applications, and Section 2.4 - Project Development Plan located in Article 2 - Administration. The proposed PDP request to subdivide and replat a platted parcel of land into four (4) lots to contain four (4) separate single-family dwellings and one (1) carriage house dwelling. The site is a permitted use in the (NCL) Zone District, subject to an administrative (Type 1) review and public hearing. A neighborhood meeting was not required of this project. The developer hosted an informal neighborhood "gathering" on -site on December 11, 2010. City staff was not in attendance so no notes from the meeting are available. City Park North Subdivision PDP, # 26-10 Administrative Hearing Findings, Conclusions, and Decision December21, 2010 Page 2 of 11 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING: Evidence presented to the Hearing Officer established no controversy or facts to refute that the hearing was properly posted, legal notices mailed and notice published. The Hearing Officer, presiding pursuant to the Fort Collins Land Use Code, opened the hearing at approximately 5:00 p.m. on December 16, 2010, 281 N. College Avenue, Conference room A, Fort Collins, Colorado. HEARING TESTIMONY, WRITTEN COMMENTS AND OTHER EVIDENCE The Hearing Officer accepted during the hearing the following evidence: (1) Planning Department Staff Report; (2) application, plans, maps and other supporting documents submitted by the applicant and the applicant's representatives to the City of Fort Collins; (3) a sign up sheet of persons attending the hearing; (4) a tape recording of the hearing; and (5) submitted written comments. The LUC, the City's Comprehensive Plan (City Plan), and the formally promulgated policies of the City are all considered part of the evidence considered by the Hearing Officer. The following is a list of those who attended the meeting: From the City: Steve Olt, City Planner From the Applicant: Dennis Sovick, 750 Havel Avenue, Fort Collins, CO 80521 From the Public: Karen Wilker, 143 Frey Street, Fort Collins, CO 80521 John Messineo, 137 N. Bryan Street, Fort Collins, CO 80521 Karen Solomon, 1700 West Mountain Ave, Fort Collins, CO 80521 Karen Allen, 2133 Falcon Hill Road, Fort Collins, CO 80524 Franklyn Garry, 1820 West Mountain Ave, Fort Collins, CO 80521 Written Comments: Written comments were received from Lon Miller, Karen Warren, and Tim Pearson. City Park North Subdivisiu,i PDP, # 26-10 Administrative Hearing Findings, Conclusions, and Decision December 21, 2010 Page 1 of 11 CITY OF FORT COLLINS ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER TYPE I ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING DATE: PROJECT NAME: CASE NUMBER: APPLICANT: OWNER: HEARING OFFICER: PROJECT DESCRIPTION: December 16, 2010 City Park North Subdivision Project Development Plan #26-10 Dennis Sovick 750 Havel Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80521 John Shaw P. O. Box 1053 Fort Collins, CO 80522 Pete Wray Senior City Planner This is a request to subdivide and replat a platted parcel of land into four (4) lots to contain four (4) separate single-family dwellings and one (1) carriage house dwelling. Each dwelling unit will have either a detached or attached garage. The existing lots, platted as Frey Street Cottages, are located at the southeast corner of LaPorte Avenue and Frey Street. The parcel is currently vacant and is in the NCL - Neighborhood Conservation, Low Density District. SUMMARY OF HEARING OFFICER DECISION: ZONING DISTRICT: Neighborhood Conservation, Low Density District STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval