Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 12/07/1999 - CONSIDERATION OF THE APPEAL OF THE OCTOBER 12, 199 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ITEM NUMBER: 33 DATE: December 7, 1999 . FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL STAFF: Stephen Olt SUBJECT: Consideration of the Appeal of the October 12, 1999,Determination of the Administrative Hearing Officer to Approve the Oakridge Business Park, 28th Filing (Bank of Colorado) - Project Development Plan. RECOMMENDATION: Council should consider the appeal based upon the record and relevant provisions of the Code and j Charter,and after consideration,either: (1)remand the matter to the Administrative Hearing Officer or (2)uphold, overturn, or modify the Hearing Officer's decision. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: On October 12. 1999, the Administrative Hearing Officer approved the Oakridge Business Park, 28th Filing(Bank of Colorado)-Project Development Plan for a two-story, 12,000 square foot bank building with 4 drive-thru lanes and associated parking on a property that is approximately 1.2 acres in size. The property is zoned HC - Harmony Corridor(as of the effective date of March 28, 1997 for the new Land Use Code). The property is located at the southeast corner of the intersection of East Harmony Road and McMurry Drive. Oakridge Drive forms the south boundary of the property. On November 9, 1999, an Amended Notice of Appeal was received by the City Clerk's office regarding the decision of the Administrative Hearing Officer.In the AmendedNotice of Appeal from the Appellant Cimarron - Harmony Comer LLC, it is alleged that: The grounds for this appeal are pursuant to Sec. 2-48b1 of the City Code. The Administrative Hearing Officer failed to properly apply relevant provisions of the applicable Code being HC-Harmony Corridor Code Requirements. The following HC - Harmony Corridor Code Requirements were not followed nor properly implemented in the Project Development Plan. Land Use Code, Division 4.21, Harmon Corridor District Article 4 21(E)(2)(a) HC - Harmony Corridor- Site Design "In the case of multiple parcel ownership, to the extent reasonably feasible, an applicant shall enter into cooperative agreements with 10 adjacent property owners to create a comprehensive development DATE: December 7, 1999 2 ITEM NUMBER: 33 plan that establishes an integrated pattern of streets, outdoor spaces, building styles and land uses." Land Use Code, Division 3.2, Site Planning and Design Standards Article 3.22(D) Circulation and Parking "All vehicular use areas in any proposed development shall be designed to be safe, efficient, convenient and attractive,considering use by all modes of transportation that will use the system, (including, without limitation, cars, trucks, busses, bicycles and emergency vehicles)." Article 3.22(E)(5) Points of Conflict "The lot layout shall specifically address the interrelation of pedestrian, vehicular and bicycle circulation in order to provide continuous,direct pedestrian access with aminimum of driveway and drive aisle crossings. Remedial treatment such as raised pedestrian crossings, forecourts and landings, special paving, signs, lights and bollards shall he provided at significant points of conflict." Article 3.22(H)(1)(3)Drive-In Facilities "The design and layout of drive-in facilities for restaurants,banks,or other uses shall provide adequate directional signage to ensure a free- flow through the facility." StaffNote: It is assumed that the Appellant is referring to Article(Section)3.2.2 Access,Circulation and Parking in the above 3 citations. The attached documents include: 1. Amended Notice of Appeal (dated November 8, 1999 and received November 9, 1999), which supercedes the original Notice of Appeal 2. StaffReport,with recommendation and attached plans,to the Administrative Hearing Officer for the October 7, 1999 public bearing 3. City of Fort Collins Administrative Hearing Officer Type I Administrative Hearing Findings, Conclusions and Decision 4. Staff response to the appeal 5. Minutes of the Meeting before the Administrative Hearing Officer,held Thursday, October 7, 1999 The procedures for deciding the appeals are described in Chapter 2,Article II,Division 3 of the City Code. CIMARRON Suite 104, 19201 E.Mai treet (303) 841_7600 Parker,CO 80134 Fax. (303) 841-7625 "CotttmCYL7Al Developers" November 8. 1999 Via Federal Express Wanda Krajicek,Cite Clerk Office of Citv Clerk. Fort Collins, CO C � ' 300 LaPorte Ave. I _ Fort Collins. CO 80522-0580 ULl j Re: Amended Notice of Appeal C!1 y'CL Oakridge Business Park, 28th Filing(Bank of Colorado) ---- Project Development Plan Administrative Hearing Date- October 7, 1999 Decision Maker Action- October 12, 1999 Dear Ms. Krajicek: Cimarron- Harmony Corner LLC ("Cimarron"), as appellant and party-in-interest, is the owner of the contiguous property at 1614 Oakridge Dr. that is affected by the subject of the decision made by Mr. Bob Blanchard,Current Planning Director, Administrative Hearing Officer and Other Decision Maker relative to the Project Development Plan pursuant to the attached Exhibit A - Findings. Conclusions and Decision. The congestion of traffic forced upon the existing conditions is not designed to be safe, efficient and convenient as proposed by the Project Development Plan. Cimarron as owner of the contiguous property. our tenants and their customers are directly impacted by the traffic patterns proposed. The °rounds for this appeal are pursuant to Sec. 2-48bl of the City Code. Mr. Blanchard failed to properly apply relevant provisions of the applicable Code being HC-Harmony Corridor Code Requirements. The following HC-Harmony Corridor Code Requirements were not followed nor properly implemented in the Project Development Plan. Summary of the Facts Iand Use Code,Division 4.21,Harmonv Corridor District Article 4.21(E)(2)(a)HC-Harmony Corridor- Site Design "In the case of multiple parcel ownership-to the extent reasonably feasible, an applicant shall enter into cooperative agreements with adjacent property owners to create a comprehensive development plan that establishes an integrated pattern of streets, outdoor spaces.building styles and land uses." In 1997, Cimarron installed the only entrance to the proposed development as a joint entrance. It was pointed out to Mr. Blanchard that the turning radius at the entrance curve was 32' • to permit maximum clearance to include oversized vehicles. That joint entrance is now proposed and compromised down to 24'. In addition,the Cimarron north parking lot was designed and OC: CA 1614 Oakridge Dr.Appeal \ovember 8. 1999 Page 2 installed to connect to any and all contiguous development. It was discussed and requested at the Administrative Hearing that an integrated pattern of internal driveways should be implemented. The site design of this use as proposed does not address a cooperative agreement between adjacent property owners to create a comprehensive development plan. Cimarron would seek a comprehensive development plan with the Bank of Colorado that today exists with the other contiguous owner being the Hampton Inn. Land Use Code Division 3.2,Site Planning and Design Standards Article 3 22(D) Circulation and Parking "All vehicular use areas in any proposed development shall be designed to be safe, efficient,convenient and attractive, considering use by all modes of transportation that will use the system, (including, without limitation, cars, trucks, buses, bicycles and emergency vehicles)." Mr. Blanchard was presented the circulation plan proposed that impedes and compromises the safe and efficient use of vehicular pedestrian traffic. The one way exit from the drive-up lanes is 1)a safety hazard to existing parking spaces backing into the flow of this proposed traffic; 2)safety hazard to all on-coming traffic and pedestrians; 3)a forced congestion condition to the detriment of other normal means of ingress and egress. Article 3.22(E)(5) Points of Conflict "The lot layout shall specifically address the interrelation of pedestrian, vehicular and bicycle circulation in order to provide continuous,direct pedestrian access with a minimum of driveway and drive aisle crossings. Remedial treatment such as raised pedestrian crossings, forecourts and landings, special paving, signs, lights and bollards shall be provided at significant points of conflict." The Points of Conflict caused by the one-way exit will become a continuous vehicular and pedestrian safety issue.No remedial treatment or relief has been provided. Cimarron proposed to Mr.Blanchard a connection to the north parking lot as an alternative relief to the Points of Conflict. Mr. Blanchard ruled against the connection without merit. This connection was designed by Cimarron to accommodate access to any all proposed development. Article 3.22(H)(1)(3) Drive-In Facilities "The design and layout of drive-in facilities for restaurants, banks, or other uses shall provide adequate directional signage to ensure a free-flow through the facility." It was noted to Mr. Blanchard that the Drive-In Facility does not avoid potential pedestriawvel»cle conflicts. Existing parking spaces,traffic flow congestion and pedestrian traffic from existing food uses and motel uses are clearly conflicts.No directional or control signage to adequately ensure any free-flow,pedestrian or vehicle conflict is provided. 1614 Oakridee Dr.Appeal November 8. 1999 Page i MConclusion To mitigate the inherent safety conflicts,the connection to the Cimarron north parking lot, adequate signage control. and the maintenance of the existing radius measurements are required. Thank you for your assistance. \ Sincerely. . David J. Faestel ` President • EXHIBIT A Community Planning and Environmental Services " Current Planning ity of Fort Collins CITY OF FORT COLLINS ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER TYPE I ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION HEARING OFFICER: Bob Blanchard Current Planning Director PROJECT NAME: OAKRIDGE BUSINESS PARK, 2r FILING (BANK OF COLORADO)- Project Development Plan CASE NUMBER: 13-82CD . APPLICANT: VF Ripley Associates, Inc. 1113 Stoney Hill Drive Fort Collins, Colorado 80525 OWNER: Bank of Colorado c/o Mr. Mark Kross 300 East Horsetooth Road, Suite 102 Fort Collins, CO. 80525 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request for Project Development Plan (PDP) approval for a two-story, 12,000 square foot bank building with 4 drive-thru lanes and associated parking on a property that is approximately 1.2 acres in size. It is located at the southeast corner of the intersection of East Harmony Road and McMurry Drive. Oakridge Drive forms the south boundary of the property. • 281 North College Avenue • P.O.Box 580 • Fort Collins,CO 80522-0580 • (970)221-6750 • FAX(970)416-2020 SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION AND DECISION: STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval HEARING OFFICER DECISION: Approval, with condition ZONING DISTRICT: HC— Harmony Corridor . NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING: Notice of public hearing was made on September 23, 1999 by mailing to property owners within 500 feet of the subject property. The public hearing was advertised in the Coloradoan on September 25, 1999. PUBLIC HEARING HEARING TESTIMONY WRITTEN COMMENTS AND OTHER EVIDENCE: The following is a list of those who attended the meeting: From the City: Steve Olt, Project Planner Dave Stringer, Project Engineer From the applicant: Matt Rankin, Vaught Frye Architects Linda Ripley, VF Ripley Associates Patricia Kroetch, North Star Design Mark Kross, Bank of Colorado From the Community: David Faestel, Cimarron Written Comments: None Community Concerns: Mr. Faestel is the owner of property directly to the east of the proposed development. He raised two issues: • Cross access should be provided between the subject property and his property in the vicinity of his parking lot and the return drive aisle from the bank's drive through facility; and, Encroachment onto his property at the southern end of the proposed development detention pond will not be permitted. Applicant Response: The applicant indicated modifications would be made to the design of the detention pond to avoid any encroachment on the adjacent property. They also indicated that, while a connection to the adjoining property was originally shown in the vicinity indicated by Mr. Faestel, it had been removed due to safety concerns for customers exiting the bank's drive through facility. The concern is the potential conflict between cars exiting the adjoining property and those exiting the drive through facility as they make the U-turn to the south to exit the bank. City Response: Mr. Stringer noted that area of potential detention pond encroachment onto Mr. Faestel's property has a public access and drainage easement BACKGROUND This is a request for Project Development Plan (PDP) approval for a two-story, 12,000 square foot bank building with 4 drive-thru lanes and associated parking on a property that is approximately 1.2 acres in size. It is located at the southeast comer of the intersection of East Harmony Road and McMurry Drive. Oakridge Drive forms the south boundary of the property. The property is zoned HC — Harmony Corridor. The proposed use, a financial institution, is a permitted use in this district. It is considered to be a prima use in a "Basic Industrial and Non-Retail Employment Activity Center" of the Harmony Corridor Plan, in the midst of a mixed-use business/employment park. This proposal was reviewed against the General Development Standards of Article 3 of the Land Use Code as well as the specific standards of Section 4.21, the Harmony Corridor Zoning District. This proposal has been determined to meet all applicable standards of these two articles. Two issues were discussed at the public hearing: • Encroachment onto the adjoining property at the southern end of the proposed development detention pond; and, • Cross access between the subject property and the adjoining property to the east in the vicinity of the existing parking lot and the return drive aisle from the bank's drive through facility. The applicant has indicated that the detention pond will be redesigned to ensure the facility is wholly contained on the subject property. The applicant has also indicated that, while a connection to the adjoining property was previously shown in the vicinity requested by the adjoining property owner, it had been removed due to safety concerns for customers exiting the bank's drive through facility. Specifically, the concern is the potential conflict between cars exiting the adjoining property and those exiting the drive through facility as they make the U-turn to the south to exit the bank. Review of the approved PUD on the adjoining property to the east, known as the Oakridge Business Park 2141 Filing (Wdh approved uses of retail, offices and restaurants), indicates that the parking lot is designed in such a way that access from the west could be provided. The western edge includes an area that is used for backing movements when cars exit individual parking stalls prior to leaving the parking lot to the east. The width of this area corresponds with what would be required for a drive aisle should cross access be required. However, a five foot sidewalk has been constructed along the western edge of the parking lot to provide a pedestrian connection from the property to the public sidewalk along Harmony Road. This pedestrian connection effectively precludes cross access between the properties unless the sidewalk were removed and replaced with a pedestrian crossing of a drive aisle between the two properties. Review of the standards contained in Article 3 of the Land Use Code does not reveal any requirements for connections between adjoining commercial properties except when shared parking is required for uses with staggered peak periods of parking demands. Section 4.21, the HC — Harmony Corridor Zoning District and the Harmony Corridor Design Standards and Guidelines were also reviewed without finding any basis for requiring a connection. s FINDINGS. CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS After reviewing the staff report and the record of the public hearing, the Hearing Officer makes the following findings and conclusions: 1. The OAKRIDGE BUSINESS PARK, 28" FILING - Project Development Plan contains a use permitted in the HC — Harmony Corridor Zoning District, subject to administrative review. 2. The OAKRIDGE BUSINESS PARK, 281' FILING - Project Development Plan meets all applicable standards as put forth in the Land Use Code. 3. The OAKRIDGE BUSINESS PARK, 280 FILING - Project Development Plan meets all applicable standards located in Division 4.21 Harmony Corridor District (HC) of ARTICLE 4— DISTRICTS 4. There are no criteria in Article 3 or Article 4 of the Land Use Code or the Harmony Corridor Design Standards and Guidelines that would indicate the need for a vehicular connection between the subject property and adjoining property to the east. 5. The proposed design of the detention pond includes a minor intrusion onto the adjoining property to the east which the applicant has indicated would be removed. 6. The OAKRIDGE BUSINESS PARK, 281 FILING - Project Development Plan is compatible with the surrounding land uses. DECISION Based on the findings and conclusions, the application for the Oakridge Business Park, 28" Filing (Bank of Colorado), Project Development Plan, Filing #13-82CD is approved with the following condition: The detention pond shall be redesigned to eliminate any encroachment onto the adjoining property to the east. Dated this 12th day of October, 1999, per authority granted by Sections 1.4.9(E) and 2.1 of the Land Use Code. v Robert E. Blanchard, AICP Current Planning Director dodihhearings513-82CD.hrg i VNANTV MAP ..e0 ; ErE tmmimr O ( : i I ENV ELOPE VELOPE ••.• ` i I Er I _ ` — _ W i u.wn n.na rrnae L',11 coon 1 -------------- b ____ rIFU�tNY-0-Nt Y-E �" 1 _� �^�, � LANo uee erATreTae DNEOTOa OF PLAMMS GENPIAAL NOOTE�e,'��juj,�LL��$j$ LEGAL DEMIPTION IEOEIO — a e5 OWNRPB GEpTMATION N .ya-ws�unn�r rn. — en N —� YR ry1N BANK OF COLORAW AT OAKRMIB BUSMM PARK, 2RH FUJ NG roar rnL" CMMM i _ Fib - - - - - - - - - - - - 'i - " -s sw �'-ti I i �•/ PLANT NOTES sw..•n.. 1. i �, '�� i '-- `\� •., _-_- � T��........,-.......�.+.�......-... ot to two f —I i � b ` +r ""'^' -#/e-M Uri fi-Y-DiIt1'Pw i� w WATER USAGE TABLE r %� —_�a ate_________ •My �—t`-- PLANT LIST WHO _ 1,71 �n nur BANK OF COLORADO --= AT OAKRIDGE BUSINPSS PARK, MM FHJNG r Yi4•.•w moo.auras COMPIADO wuu r.m' s CommL .ty Planning and Environmental rvices Current Planning ity of Fort Collins ADMINISTRATIVE PUBLIC HEARING: October 7, 1999 PROJECT: OAKRIDGE BUSINESS PARK, 28`" FILING (BANK OF COLORADO) - Project Development Plan - #13-82CD APPLICANT: VF Ripley Associates, Inc. 1113 Stoney Hill Drive Fort Collins, Colorado 80525 OWNER: Bank of Colorado c/o Mr. Mark Kross 300 East Horsetooth Road, Suite 102 Fort Collins, CO. 80525 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: . This is a request for Project Development Plan (PDP) approval for a two-story, 12,000 square foot bank building with 4 drive-thru lanes and associated parking on a property that is approximately 1.2 acres in size. It is located at the southeast corner of the intersection of East Harmony Road and McMurry Drive. Oakridge Drive forms the south boundary of the property, which is in the HC — Harmony Corridor Zoning District. RECOMMENDATION: Approval EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: This PDP complies with the applicable requirements of the Land Use Code LUC , specifically: * the process located in Division 2.2 - Common Development Review Procedures for Development Applications of ARTICLE 2 - ADMINISTRATION; * standards located in Division 3.2 - Site Planning and Design Standards and Division 3.5 - Building Standards of ARTICLE 3 - GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS; and • 1 281 North College Avenue • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins. CO 805Z2-0580 • (970) 2221-6750 • FAX(970)416-2020 r ' standards located in Division 4.21 Harmony Corridor District (HC) of ARTICLE 4 — DISTRICTS. ' Financial services are permitted in the HC — Harmony Corridor Zoning District, subject to administrative review. The purpose of the HC District is: Intended to implement the design concepts and land use vision of the Harmony Corridor Plan —that of creating an attractive and complete mixed-use area with a major employment base. This proposal complies with the purpose of the HC District as it is a finance service use, considered to be a primary use in a 'Basic Industrial and Non-Retail Employment Activity Center" of the Harmony Corridor Plan, in the midst of a mixed-use business/employment park. The property is bounded on 3 sides by major streets, being an arterial to the north and collectors to the west and south. To the east is a small multi- use retail building and the Hampton Inn Hotel. COMMENTS: 1. Background: The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows: N: HC; existing commercial, retail, and industrial uses (Golden Meadows) S: HC; existing office and industrial uses (Oakridge Business Park) W: HC; existing cemetery, vacant land (Oakridge Business Park) E: HC; existing commercial and retail uses (Oakridge Business Park) This property was annexed into the City as part of the Keenland Annexation in August, 1980. The Planning and Zoning Board approved the Oakridge Business Park, Block 3, Lot 1 (Seventeen Filing) — Preliminary & Final on September 27, 1993, for a 14,000 square foot veterinary clinic building, and associated parking, on 1.2 acres (being the subject property). This development proposal was never recorded and filed. The subject property is currently unplatted because the subdivision plat approved with the Oakridge Business Park, Block 3, Lot 1 (Seventeen Filing) — Preliminary & Final (above) was never recorded and filed. 2 2. ARTICLE 2 -ADMINISTRATION Section 2.2.2. Step 2: Neighborhood Meetings The OAKRIDGE BUSINESS PARK, 28' FILING - PDP contains a proposed land use that is permitted as a Type I use, subject to an administrative review. The proposed use is a financial service (Bank of Colorado) and constitutes a relatively small infill commercial development on the edge of an existing, and still developing, employment and business park on the south side of East Harmony Road. The LUC does not require that a neighborhood meeting be held for a Type I development proposal and a neighborhood meeting was not held to discuss the OAKRIDGE BUSINESS PARK, 281" FILING - PDP. 3. ARTICLE 3 - GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS This OAKRIDGE BUSINESS PARK, 28' FILING - PDP proposal meets all applicable standards in ARTICLE 3 - GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS of the LUC. Of specific note are Division 3.2 - Site Planning and Design Standards and Division 3.5 - Building Standards. Further discussions of these particular standards follow. • A. Division 3.2 - Site Planning and Design Standards Section 3.2.1. Landscaping and Tree Protection The proposal satisfies the applicable Landscaping and Tree Protection standards, including the following: Street trees. The proposed street tree planting is in accordance with Sections 3.2.1(D)(2)(a) and (c), providing trees at 40' on-center in an 8' wide parkway (between curb and sidewalk) along McMurry Drive, a collector street, and 25' — 40' on-center in a 4' wide parkway (between curb and sidewalk) along Oakridge Drive, a collector street. The trees along Oakridge Drive are ornamental Crabapples, which are acceptable where streetlights and utilities make full size shade trees feasible. Parking lot landscaping - perimeter and interior. Parking lot landscaping for the banking center is in accordance with the standards, including those related to Parking Lot Perimeter Landscaping (Sections 3.2.1(E)(4)(a) and(b)J and Parking Lot Interior Landscaping (Section 3.2.1(E)(5)j. 3 Trees are being provided in the perimeter setbacks and parkways along McMurry and Oakridge Drives, adjacent to the parking lot for the banking center, at a ratio that meets the requirement for 1 tree per 25 lineal feet along a public street. This satisfies the standard for perimeter landscaping. This development proposal, containing a total of 32 parking spaces, exceeds the standard for interior landscaping (minimum of 6%) by providing 9.9% interior landscaping in the banking center parking lot. Screening. The proposal complies with the standard relating to the screening (Section 3.2.1(E)(6)]of areas of low visual interest or visually intrusive site elements (such as trash collection, open storage, service areas, loading docks, and blank walls) from off-site view. The trash enclosure will be attached to the northeast corner of the building and be of an identical material as the building and attached screen wall. The enclosure (6' to 7' in height) will be screened from East Harmony Road with deciduous and evergreen plant materials that range from 2' to 6' in height. Section 3.2.2. Access, Circulation and Parking The proposal satisfies the applicable Access, Circulation and Parking standards, including the following: Bicycle parking. Bicycle parking is provided on-site, near the front entry to the building, with a permanently anchored rack that can accommodate at least 2 bicycles. This meets the required number of bicycle parking spaces, as well as the location, as set forth in Sections 3.2.2(C)(4)(a) and(b). Directness and continuity of walkways. The development proposal satisfies the standards (Sections 3.2.2(5)(a) and (b)]that walkways within the site shall be located and aligned to directly and continuously connect areas or points of pedestrian origin and destination, and shall not be located and aligned solely based on the outline of a parking lot configuration that does not provide such direct pedestrian access. Also, where it is necessary for the primary pedestrian access to cross drive aisles or internal roadways, the pedestrian crossing shall emphasize and place priority on pedestrian access and safety. The development proposal provides for an internal sidewalk network that includes detached walkways along the local and connector streets as well as walkways through open space areas. Primary pedestrian crossings will be defined with pavement treatment and striping different from that of the vehicular lanes. 4 Required number of parking spaces. The development proposal satisfies the parking requirements set forth in the LUC for the proposed banking center with drive-thru lanes. Section 3.2.2(K)(2)(a) sets forth maximum parking requirements for non- residential land uses. The LUC permits up to 3.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet of leasable floor area for financial services. There are 32 parking spaces proposed on-site, equaling 2.67 spaces per 1,000 square feet of leasable floor area. B. Division 3.5 - Building Standards Section 3.5.1. Building and Project Compatibility The OAKRIDGE BUSINESS PARK, 28" FILING - PDP satisfies all applicable Building and Project Compatibility standards, including the following: Building orientation. This proposal complies with Section 3.5.1(D), which states that: To the maximum extent feasible, primary facades and entries shall face the adjacent street. Except as allowed in the Industrial zone district, a • main entrance shall face a connecting walkway with a direct pedestrian connection to the street without requiring all pedestrians to walk through parking lots or cross driveways. The orientation of the building allows pedestrians to enter and exit the main entry to the building via a sidewalk connecting directly to and from the public sidewalk along McMurry Drive, without having to walk through parking lots or cross driveways. Building materials. The proposed structure of the banking center will consist of the following building materials: - a combination of light buff, ground-face and buff, split-face masonry siding - earthtone aluminum storefront windows with bronze glazing - earthtone vertical metal infill panels over the ground floor windows - buff, split-face masonry headers over the second floor windows - earthtone steel sunscreen elements over the second floor windows, extending 4' horizontally out from the building face - earthtone sloped metal roofing over the main entry to the building and the canopy over the drive-thru lanes • 5 These materials satisfy the requirements as set forth in Section 3.5.1(F)(1). Section 3.5.3. Mixed-Use, Institutional and Commercial Buildings The proposal satisfies the Relationship of Buildings to Streets, Walkways and Parking standards, more specifically: Orientation to Build-to Lines for Streetfront Buildings. Sections 3.5.3(B)(1) and (2) state that: At least one main entrance of any commercial or mixed-use building shall face and open directly onto a connecting walkway with pedestrian frontage. Build-to lines based on a consistent relationship of buildings to the street sidewalk shall be established by development projects, in order to form visually continuous, pedestrian-oriented streetfronts with no vehicle use area between building faces and the street. Multiple building entrys face McMurry Drive and/or open directly onto a pedestrian connection with the public sidewalk along McMurry Drive, to the west of the banking center, without having to cross internal parking lots or driveways. Build-to Line. Section 3.5.3(B)(2)(b) states that: Buildings shall be located no more than 15'from the right-of-way of an adjoining street if the street is smaller than a full arterial or has on-street parking. The westerly building face, as proposed, maintains a 2' to 23' setback from the right-of-way for McMurry Drive, a collector street. The proposed building layout would provide for a direct pedestrian connection from an entry on the west side of the building to the public sidewalk along McMurry Drive, and from the entry on the south side of the building that has a pedestrian walkway to the public sidewalk along McMurry Drive. 6 4. ARTICLE 4_ DISTRICT STANDARDS A. Division 4.21 — Harmony Corridor District Financial services are permitted in the HC — Harmony Corridor Zoning District, subject to administrative review. The purpose of the HC District is: Intended to implement the design concepts and land use vision of the Harmony Corridor Plan —that of creating an attractive and complete mixed-use area with a major employment base. This proposal complies with the purpose of the HC District as it is a finance service use, considered to be a primary use in a "Basic Industrial and Non-Retail Employment Activity Center" of the Harmony Corridor Plan, on the edge of a mixed-use business/employment park. The property is bounded on 3 sides by major streets, being an arterial to the north and collectors to the west and south. To the east is a small multi- use retail building and the Hampton Inn Hotel. 5. Findings of Fact/Conclusion: A. The OAKRIDGE BUSINESS PARK, 28' FILING - Project Development Plan contains a use permitted in the HC — Harmony Corridor Zoning District, subject to administrative review. B. The OAKRIDGE BUSINESS PARK, 28' FILING - Project Development Plan meets all applicable standards as put forth in the LUC, including Division 3.2 - Site Planning and Design Standards and Division 3.5 - Building Standards. C. The OAKRIDGE BUSINESS PARK, 28' FILING - Project Development Plan meets all applicable standards located in Division 4.21 Harmony Corridor District (HC) of ARTICLE 4— DISTRICTS. D. The OAKRIDGE BUSINESS PARK, 28' FILING - Project Development Plan is compatible with the surrounding land uses. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the OAKRIDGE BUSINESS PARK, 28" FILING (BANK of COLORADO), Project Development Plan - #13-82CD. i s VrWY MAPmw ... w.© ct o I » BLILDING ENVELOPE _ �1 o I � � auac a COLp1A00 --�,- » 14 i i V u J i Me MURRY DRIVEITZ -.w«.....aw USE STATISTICS CRECTIXi OF PLANNING GENERAL NOTEB f,$•� LEGAL DESCRFTICN - LEGEND T 'X K d= y e OWNER'S CElITFN:ATION 7,dLT401t• ..............«, _ .........._ ....»........... : __ _ .. « f d�..RB"��i" AA"t a'.5t,`:'4'.L'li" _ .«w. «.........�" _.... • »... « ®....w«...w., ... `,5,�.{e.�.'� ta- BN6 V11X . - - BANK OF WLORADO AT OAKRIDGE BUSINESS PARK, 29M FRANG « �� PORT couna COLORADO ,�,�w �� � Its 1�t��ro! �--- «• .y pr_ PLANT NOTES .,.. I ' ' I I ., � � - l^\� / ""^'w s-• .ram:".:�,�.-:_-.. ~1`Lj �,y�....r...r.. A ri 1 I S I 2 b. Mo-MURRY-O Ri V-t� g.•�,,,„,.,_.�"'� �• _ w^+r>.e � �.�+ ,�� _- �W WATER U5AGG TABLE rLANT L15T LEGEND Rtua .�., ...... .....c..a..o u.,rrou. xosw.r'a e ue vux BANK OF COLORAW _ _ 1J w. _ AT OAMMGE BUSWM — _ �. PARK, 28TH FRING FART COUI lB CpIORADo a Puun i�.o 2>!i SOUTH ELEVATION['�l NwijTH ELEVAT i .aaw EAST ELEVATION _ ___ .azzwazw BANK OF COLORADO — ! AT OAKRIDGE BUSINESS PARK Mp �.�a�. ,�.,.. 4 of 5 PORT CO LNs COLORADO _-.-- WEST ELEVATION CommL IY Planning and Environmental .rvices Current Planning City of Fort Collins CITY OF FORT COLLINS ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER TYPE I ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION HEARING OFFICER: Bob Blanchard Current Planning Director PROJECT NAME: OAKRIDGE BUSINESS PARK, 28- FILING (BANK OF COLORADO)- Project Development Plan CASE NUMBER: 13-82CD APPLICANT: VF Ripley Associates, Inc. 1113 Stoney Hill Drive Fort Collins, Colorado 80525 OWNER: Bank of Colorado Go Mr. Mark Kross 300 East Horsetooth Road, Suite 102 Fort Collins, CO. 80525 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request for Project Development Plan (PDP) approval for a two-story, 12,000 square foot bank building with 4 drive-thru lanes and associated parking on a property that is approximately 1.2 acres in size. It is located at the southeast corner of the intersection of East Harmony Road and McMurry Drive. Oakridge Drive forms the south boundary of the property. 281 North"Colle,e Avenue • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins,CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6750 • FAX (970)416-2020 SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION AND DECISION: STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval HEARING OFFICER DECISION: Approval, with condition ZONING DISTRICT: HC — Harmony Corridor . NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING: Notice of public hearing was made on September 23, 1999 by mailing to property owners within 500 feet of the subject property. The public hearing was advertised in the Coloradoan on September 25, 1999. PUBLIC HEARING HEARING TESTIMONY. WRITTEN COMMENTS AND OTHER EVIDENCE: The following is a list of those who attended the meeting: From the City: Steve Olt, Project Planner Dave Stringer, Project Engineer From the applicant: Matt Rankin, Vaught Frye Architects Linda Ripley, VF Ripley Associates Patricia Kroetch, North Star Design Mark Kross, Bank of Colorado From the Community: David Faestel, Cimarron Written Comments: None Community Concerns: Mr. Faestel is the owner of property directly to the east of the proposed development. He raised two issues: Cross access should be provided between the subject property and his property in the vicinity of his parking lot and the return drive aisle from the bank's drive through facility; and, • Encroachment onto his property at the southern end of the proposed development detention pond will not be permitted. Applicant Response: The applicant indicated modifications would be made to the design of the detention pond to avoid any encroachment on the adjacent property. They also indicated that, while a connection to the adjoining property was originally shown in the vicinity indicated by Mr. Faestel, it had been removed due to safety concerns for customers exiting the bank's drive through facility. The concern is the potential conflict between cars exiting the adjoining property and those exiting the drive through facility as they make the U-tum to the south to exit the bank. City Response: Mr. Stringer noted that area of potential detention pond encroachment onto Mr. Faestel's property has a public access and drainage easement BACKGROUND This is a request for Project Development Plan (PDP) approval for a two-story, 12,000 square foot bank building with 4 drive-thru lanes and associated parking on a property that is approximately 1.2 acres in size. It is located at the southeast corner of the intersection of East Harmony Road and McMurry Drive. Oakridge Drive forms the south boundary of the property. The property is zoned HC — Harmony Corridor. The proposed use, a financial institution, is a permitted use in this district. It is considered to be a Primary use in a "Basic Industrial and Non-Retail Employment Activity Center" of the Harmony Corridor Plan, in the midst of a mixed-use business/employment park. This proposal was reviewed against the General Development Standards of Article 3 of the Land Use Code as well as the specific standards of Section 4.21, the Harmony Corridor Zoning District. This proposal has been determined to meet all applicable standards of these two articles. Two issues were discussed at the public hearing: • Encroachment onto the adjoining property at the southern end of the proposed development detention pond; and, • Cross access between the subject property and the adjoining property to the east in the vicinity of the existing parking lot and the return drive aisle from the bank's drive through facility. The applicant has indicated that the detention pond will be redesigned to ensure the facility is wholly contained on the subject property. The applicant has also indicated that, while a connection to the adjoining property was previously shown in the vicinity requested by the adjoining property owner, it had been removed due to safety concerns for customers exiting the bank's drive through facility. Specifically, the concern is the potential conflict between cars exiting the adjoining property and those exiting the drive through facility as they make the U-tum to the south to exit the bank. Review of the approved PUD on the adjoining property to the east, known as the Oakridge Business Park 21" Filing (with approved uses of retail, offices and restaurants), indicates that the parking lot is designed in such a way that access from the west could be provided. The western edge includes an area that is used for backing movements when cars exit individual parking stalls prior to leaving the parking lot to the east. The width of this area corresponds with what would be required for a drive aisle should cross access be required. However, a five foot sidewalk has been constructed along the western edge of the parking lot to provide a pedestrian connection from the property to the public sidewalk along Harmony Road. This pedestrian connection effectively precludes cross access between the properties unless the sidewalk were removed and replaced with a pedestrian crossing of a drive aisle between the two properties. Review of the standards contained in Article 3 of the Land Use Code does not reveal any requirements for connections between adjoining commercial properties except when shared parking is required for uses with staggered peak periods of parking demands. Section 4.21, the HC — Harmony Corridor Zoning District and the Harmony Corridor Design Standards and Guidelines were also reviewed without finding any basis for requiring a connection. • FINDINGS. CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS After reviewing the staff report and the record of the public hearing, the Hearing Officer makes the following findings and conclusions: 1. The OAKRIDGE BUSINESS PARK, 28"' FILING - Project Development Plan contains a use permitted in the HC — Harmony Corridor Zoning District, subject to administrative review. 2. The OAKRIDGE BUSINESS PARK, 28' FILING - Project Development Plan meets all applicable standards as put forth in the Land Use Code. 3. The OAKRIDGE BUSINESS PARK, 28°i FILING - Project Development Plan meets all applicable standards located in Division 4.21 Harmony Corridor District (HC) of ARTICLE 4— DISTRICTS . 4. There are no criteria in Article 3 or Article 4 of the Land Use Code or the Harmony Corridor Design Standards and Guidelines that would indicate the need for a vehicular connection between the subject property and adjoining property to the east. 5. The proposed design of the detention pond includes a minor intrusion onto the adjoining property to the east which the applicant has indicated would be removed. 6. The OAKRIDGE BUSINESS PARK, 28 h FILING - Project Development Plan is compatible with the surrounding land uses. DECISION Based on the findings and conclusions, the application for the Oakridge Business Park, 28' Filing (Bank of Colorado), Project Development Plan, Filing #13-82CD is approved with the following condition: The detention pond shall be redesigned to eliminate any encroachment onto the adjoining property to the east. • Dated this 12th day of October, 1999, per authority granted by Sections 1.4.9(E) and 2.1 of the Land Use Code. Robert E. Blanchard, AICP Current Planning Director docfiMwadngs\13-82CD.hrg . TYPE I ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING MINUTES OCTOBER 7, 1999 HEARING OFFICER: BOB BLANCHARD The meeting was called to order at 2:00 p.m. by Hearing Officer Bob Blanchard. Mr. Blanchard stated this hearing was for the Oakridge Business Park, 28th Filing, Bank of Colorado Project Development Plan, # 13-82CD. Mr. Blanchard stated the time was 2:00 p.m. and the location of the Hearing was 281 North College Ave. He stated he was the Current Planning Director for the City of Fort Collins and would be serving as the Administrative Hearing Officer today. Mr. Blanchard reviewed the sequence of the hearing to be followed: 1. Introductions of people present. 2. Staff Presentation. 3. Applicant's Presentation and Comments. 4. Public Input. 5. Applicant's response. 6. Staff response. 7. Informal dialogue of questions and answers. 1. INTRODUCTIONS 1. Bob Blanchard, Current Planning Director and Hearing Officer. 2. Steve Olt, City Planner and Project Manager of the Project. 3. Dave Stringer, City of Fort Collins Engineering Department and Engineer on the project. 4. David Faestel, Cimarron Investment Properties, Adjoining Owner. 5. Mark Kross, Bank of Colorado, Acting President for Fort Collins. 6. Linda Ripley, VF Ripley &Associates, Consultant on the Project. 7. Matt Rankin, Vaught Frye Architects, Project Architect for Bank of Colorado. 8. Patricia Kroetch, North Star Design, Civil Engineer for the Project. Administrative Hearing Minutes October 7, 1999 Page 2 2. STAFF PRESENTATION Steve Olt, City Planner stated this was a proposal for a Bank located south of east Harmony Road at the southeast corner of East Harmony Road and McMurry Drive. The project is also bounded on the south side by Oakridge Drive and to the east is an existing retail building owned by Mr. Faestel, who is present at this meeting. The proposal is for a two-story bank building that is 12,000 s.f. in size, 6,000 s.f. per floor. The bank would contain 32 parking spaces on-site as well as a 4-lane drive-thru, which would enter and exit from Oakridge Drive. 3. APPLICANT PRESENTATION AND COMMENTS Matt Rankin, Vaught Frye Architects gave the applicant presentation. He stated that the project was located in southeast Fort Collins. He stated that Harmony Road was to the north, McMurry Drive to the west, Oakridge Drive to the south. The project is part of the Oakridge Business Park and as part of the review of this project, it has been determined that the improvements are required along McMurry Drive to include the expansion of the right-of-way for a dedicated right-hand turn lane and an eight foot bicycle lane extending from Oakridge Drive to Harmony Road. In addition, at some point in the future, a 10-foot bike lane will be stripped north of the future edge of pavement along Harmony Road. The building site sits at the northwest corner of the property, immediately behind an existing monument sign for the Oakridge Business Park. The area has substantial tree planting vegetation. To the east s of their project is a parking lot with the main access to the site occurring through a shared access easement with the adjacent property off of Oakridge Drive. On the east side of the project there is a drive-thru canopy lane with three remote teller stations and a dedicated commercial and ATM lane as part of the bank. The drive thru will circulate out through a one-way drive exiting out onto Oakridge Drive. There is pedestrian access throughout their site including the extension of an 8 foot pedestrian sidewalk connecting to the adjacent property and extending out to the corners of McMurry Drive and Harmony Road. This occurs within their 80 foot landscape easement as part of the Harmony Corridor Design Criteria. From the west off McMurry Drive the main entry is accessed through an architectural entry portal. To the south the access is off of Oakridge Drive through a parking lot using enhanced cross walks. They are also connecting across their drive lanes to the adjacent property with a sidewalk, ramps and crosswalks. . Administrative Hearing Minutes October 7, 1999 Page 3 The materials of the building are contextual to the neighborhood of Oakridge Business Park and include combinations of ground face block, split face block, architectural metal panel detailing, architectural metal roofing, aluminum store fronts. On the second level there is painted decorative steel sun screen elements and painted steel trellis and canopy elements at the main entry and also a patio area at the northwest corner of the project. The landscaping of the project consists of streetscape planting in combination with existing street planting that is there. There are parking lot plantings, perimeter foundation plantings and at the north part of the site, there are evergreen plantings as well as an earth berm and a low screen wall to act as a buffer between the drive-thru lanes and Harmony Road. As far as site drainage, they are collecting perimeter building runoff and down spouting it through an under drain system, collecting water at the southwest corner of the site where it is being transmitted to their detention pond area which is located on the east side of their site, before it is being released off-site to an existing storm system. • They have made provisions with this project for a small monument sign located at the entry to the project, which is opposite a monument sign on the adjacent property. 4. Public Input David Faestel, Adjoining property owner stated he had two issues. One is the access -- in a prior plan we had received, there was access into our adjoining parking lot to the north. He stated that Mr. Olt had said the plans had been revised since they would not allow an encroachment onto his property. Originally the storm sewer was coming across his property. Mr. Faestel stated that he denied the encroachment, thus they denied the connection into the parking lot to the north. He stated that he is not aware of any parking lot in current planning along Harmony Road that has a dead end parking lot like they currently have north of their Harmony building. All parking lots have dual access and flow through access. This was intended, although it is does not show depressed parking, depressed with two ramps and a depressed sidewalk at their extreme western portion of that parking lot. He did not believe that was proper planning. He felt that this being the only parking lot along Harmony Road that is like this is absurd. The second issue he has is the encroachment on his property — and that he will not allow an encroachment onto his property at the turn coming out of their (Bank of • Colorado) property. That storm encroachment will have to be moved back in plus allowed room for forming of the curb and pan. Also, no encroachment will be allowed Administrative Hearing Minutes October 7, 1999 Page 4 for any forming work or for any of the curb work. He wants to protect the width of the curb that they installed at their expense and he is not asking for any recapture, and their curb will have to come back in onto their property and off of his land. Mr. Blanchard asked if the last issue he talked about was the encroachment of the retention pond. Mr. Faestel replied it was the curb, pan and construction area, and part of the storm sewer. He stated that there is a comer stake out there and he wanted to make sure it is not encroached upon. In that regard, there will have to be some redesign of that comer. 5. Applicant's Response Mr. Rankin addressed the two issues. He stated that with regard to the portion of curbing from the retention pond that crosses the property, he did not feel that it will be a problem to make modifications to that. This being a shared access easement-- when they developed this, they constructed or drew a 24 foot wide drive isle, not thinking that it would be a problem, as seems to be the case. They will make modifications down on the south end to remove the portion from Mr. Faestel's property. Mr. Rankin addressed the hammerhead parking. He stated that at one point in previous schemes, they had shown a physical connection between the two sites, however, upon further review, it was determined that there were substantial cost implications and more importantly, traffic congestions and safety concerns by the Bank for its commercial drive thru patrons. With the connection occurring there, there is the confluence of two sets of vehicles and they see that there is no direct benefit to their project by installing a safe connection. The only benefit would be to the adjacent property. 6. Staff Response Director Blanchard asked if staff had anything to add. He asked Mr. Stringer if he had knowledge of the detention pond. Mr. Stringer stated for the record he would refer to Oakridge Business Park, 21 st filing, which is the property immediately to the east of this property. In that, he noted that at one time it was all dedicated as public access and drainage easement. In 1997 there was a request to vacate a portion of that easement to allow the building to go in, and the remainder was retained as drainage and access easement. This would be the comer that is in question. Administrative Hearing Minutes October 7, 1999 Page 5 Ms. Kroetch, Civil Engineer on the project added that it also indicates an existing access and drainage easement that is platted on this property that was platted in order to develop the adjacent property. There is an easement that exists on both lots that was dedicated by separate document. Mr. Stringer stated that this was a public access and drainage easement. That means that it is for use by the general public. It is not an easement that is granted exclusively to one party or the other. Director Blanchard asked if that included the adjoining property owner. Mr. Stringer replied that was correct. Mr. Stringer stated that there is an existing easement there that would allow for the drainage. Ms. Kroetch addressed the location of the drainage pipe issue of Mr. Faestel. She stated that the reason they have gotten to the location that they are at is the request . from Storm Drainage. They were concerned about their inflow pipe being as far away from their outflow pipe as possible. They moved the outflow pipe as far to the east as they possibly could and still maintain it on their property. Mr. Faestel stated that the drainage they show on the plan is fine. His point was that he does not want any curb and gutter built or any construction on his property outside the easement. Mr. Olt noted that the driveway off of Oakridge Drive (which is a shared driveway between the two properties) is 24 feet in width now, existing, as it goes into Mr. Faestel's property. Now, as it was built, it flares out around the curve to a width of 30 feet. So instead of a consistent 24 foot wide driveway coming around, it actually flares out to 30 feet and then back to approximately 24 feet. The typical standard driveway width for uses of this nature would be 24 feet, a standard two-lane width. Mr. Olt stated the point he was trying to make was that there was no need for the additional 6 feet of width because it flares out on the curb. The inside curb radius is meeting the 20 foot minimum turning radius, and it would be met with the 24 foot wide driveway which this new plan is proposing. It would seem that the 30 foot width would be somewhat excessive for the nature of the land use it is serving. • Administrative Hearing Minutes October 7, 1999 Page 6 7. Informal dialogue and questions. Mr. Olt presented a minor amendment that was approved for Mr. Faestel back in 1997 to reverse the building and parking. The original Lot 2 of the Hampton Inn P.U.D. was approved with the building closer to Harmony Road and the parking to the south. With this administrative change, it reversed the building and the parking to allow the parking lot to the north adjacent to Harmony Road and the building between two sets of parking. Also, the access off of Oakridge Drive is where it exists today, you come into the site to the north parking lot and enter 13 parking spaces with a backup area and a sidewalk along the property line. There was no proposed vehicular connection with this approved plan with the property to the west. Director Blanchard asked Mr. Stringer to point out on the plan where the encroachment occurred on the site plan. Mr. Stringer indicated on the plan where the encroachment occurred. Director Blanchard asked again if it was dedicated as a public easement. Mr. Stringer replied it was. Mr. Rankin asked if it was a use easement for passage or does it mean that any kind of use could occur there. Mr. Stringer replied that it was for the use as dedicated on the plat, drainage and easement, in terms of usage, for passage versus anything can go in there. Director Blanchard asked if it would be drainage and access. Mr. Stringer replied yes. Director Blanchard asked how wide the exit lane was for the one-way drive-thru facility. Mr. Rankin replied 14 feet. Director Blanchard asked to see where the main lobby entrances were located. Mr. Rankin reviewed the site plan, and where the main building entrance is located. He stated that there was access from within the building to the patio, and there was a service and stair egress location. Administrative Hearing Minutes October 7, 1999 Page 7 Director Blanchard asked if the northwest doors were public entrances. Mr. Rankin replied no. Director Blanchard asked Mr. Faestel if he had always anticipated that the northern parking lot, that was reversed through the minor amendment, would have access to the west. Mr. Faestel replied that they had originally had that property under contract. They had three buildings with a complete circulatory pattern. Director Blanchard stated that with the approval of the sidewalk, there was no access anticipated. He asked if the sidewalk was constructed. Mr. Faestel replied that the sidewalk was in place. It is not depressed with ramps and Mr. Of had stated that if it was depressed with ramps then we would have anticipated access. It always was anticipated to have access. He stated that because they elevated the sidewalk which should have had two ramps and trusses. If they would 0 have done that, we would not be needing these discussions. Director Blanchard replied that was his point--the reason for his question was that it seems that the connection was not anticipated with the approval of the sidewalk. Based on Mr. Faestel's testimony, it sounded like he assumed it was going to be connected, but yet the sidewalk is constructed with out depressions to provide for access across. Mr. Faestel stated he would be glad to pay for them to patch the sidewalk. Director Blanchard opened up the hearing for questions and comments for the record. Mr. Faestel reiterated his position. He stated that legally his position was no encroachment, no construction on the comer that is not within the easement provision. He stated that he purposely built the width of the curb cut to accommodate two Expeditions making the turn. Mr. Faestel stated that surface drainage and access is fine but asked again that applicant's curb be moved back and that the parking lot be paved all the way back to the property line. Director Blanchard asked Mr. Stringer for his response. • Mr. Stringer replied that what he was hearing was that there was to be no encroachment into the easement, other than for the purposes of drainage. Administrative Hearing Minutes October 7, 1999 Page 8 Director Blanchard asked Mr. Rankin if the improvements on McMurry would include a dedicated right turn lane. The drawings show a combination thru lane/right turn lane and he wanted to make sure that was accurate for the record. Mr. Rankin replied that was correct. Ms. Ripley summed up that they did not have any problems moving the curb and that they can do that without affecting the stormwater or the site plan. In terms of the connection, their first preference is to not do it because of traffic safety concerns. It is easier to drain their site without that connection and generally they have no incentive to do it because it does not benefit their property. In any event that the connection were to be made, or it turned out to be the recommendation, they believe it should be a shared initial cost and also long-term maintenance costs. Director Blanchard asked for any other questions. He stated that the Code gives him 10 working days to provide a final decision. As of the date he signs the hearing officer report, there is a 14 day appeal period. Director Blanchard closed the hearing. Community Planning and Environmental Services Current Planning City of Fort Collins MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and Members of City Council FROM: Stephen Olt, City Planner THRU: Greg Byrne, Director of C.P.E.S. DATE: December 1, 1999 RE: Oakridge Business Park, 28' Filing (Bank of Colorado), Project Development Plan — Appeal to City Council The purpose of this memorandum is to respond to an appeal regarding the October 12, 1999 decision of the Administrative Hearing Officer to approve the Oakridge Business Park, 28th Filing (Bank of Colorado) — Project Development Plan. . On October 12, 1999, the Administrative Hearing Officer approved the Oakrdge Business Park, 28" Filing (Bank of Colorado) — Project Development Plan for a two-story, 12.000 square foot bank building with 4 drive-thru lanes and associated parking on a property that is approximately 1.2 acres in size. The property is zoned HC — Harmony Corridor (as of the effective date of March 28, 1997 for the new Land Use Code). The property is located at the southeast corner of the intersection of East Harmony Road and McMurry Drive. Oakridge Drive forms the south boundary of the property. Section 2-48 of the City Code states: "Except for appeals by members of the City Council, for which no grounds need be stated, the permissible grounds for appeal shall be limited to allegations that the board or commission committed one or more of the following errors: (1) Failure to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Code and Charter; (2) Failure to conduct a fair hearing in that: a. The board or commission exceeded its authority or jurisdiction as contained in the Code and Charter; • 1 281 North College Avenue • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins,CO 80522-0580 • (970)221-6750 • FAX (970)416-2020 b. The board or commission substantially ignored its previously established rules of procedure; C. The board or commission considered evidence relevant to its findings which was substantially false or grossly misleading; or d. The board or commission improperly failed to receive all relevant evidence offered by the appellant." The Appeal: Appellant Cimarron — Harmony Center LLC Suite 104, 19201 E. Mainstreet Parker, CO. 80134 Grounds for Appeal: On November 9, 1999, an Amended Notice of Appeal was received by the City Clerk's office regarding the decision of the Administrative Hearing Officer. In the Amended Notice of Appeal from the Appellant Cimarron — Harmony Corner LLC, it is alleged that: (Note: Bold text represents excerpts from the appeal document) The grounds for this appeal are pursuant to Sec. 2-48b1 of the City Code. The Administrative Hearing Officer failed to properly apply relevant provisions of the applicable Code being HC — Harmony Corridor Code Requirements. The following HC — Harmony Corridor Code Requirements were not followed nor properly implemented in the Project Development Plan. Land Use Code, Division 4.21, Harmony Corridor District Article 4.21(E)(2)(a) HC — Harmony Corridor— Site Design "In the case of multiple parcel ownership, to the extent reasonably feasible, an applicant shall enter into cooperative agreements with adjacent property owners to create a comprehensive development plan that establishes an integrated pattern of streets, outdoor spaces, building styles and land uses." In 1997, Cimarron installed the only entrance to the proposed development as a joint entrance. It was pointed out to Mr. Blanchard that the turning radius at the entrance curve was 32' to permit maximum clearance to include oversized vehicles. That joint entrance is now proposed and compromised down to 24'. In addition, the Cimarron north parking lot was designed and installed to connect to any and all contiguous 2 development It was discussed and requested at the Administrative Hearing that an • integrated pattern if internal driveways should be implemented. The site design of this use as proposed does not address a cooperative agreement between property owners to create a comprehensive development plan. Cimarron would seek a comprehensive development plan with the Bank of Colorado that today exists with the other contiguous owner being the Hampton Inn. Staff Response: There is an existing entrance from Oakridge Drive to the existing retail building owned by the Appellant. The applicant for the developer is proposing that this entrance be used as a shared access with the Bank of Colorado. The driveway width would be 24', which is a standard width for two-way traffic. The existing driveway width is 24' where it enters the site from Oakridge Drive and again as it continues through the parking lot on the Appellant's property. Only through the short curve in the driveway does the width flare out to 30'. Steve Olt, the City's Project Planner, stated at the Administrative Hearing that the inside curve radius meets the 20' minimum turning radius requirement and it would seem that the 30' width would be somewhat excessive for the nature of the land use it is serving. The north parking lot (on the Appellant's property) was not designed and installed to connect to any and all contiguous development. The placement of the building and north parking lot on Lot 2 of the Oakridge Business Park, 2151 Filing (the Appellant's property) was approved on August 8, 1997. The approved and recorded plan for Lot 2 shows a 14 space parking lot on the north side of the building, with a vehicle turnaround area and a 5' wide pedestrian sidewalk at the west end of the parking lot. Neither this plan nor the plan previously approved on December 16, 1996 show a vehicular connection (or a provision for) in this location between the Appellant's1 property and the Bank of Colorado property. This fact was pointed out and discussed at the Administrative Hearing. The applicant for the Bank of Colorado indicated at the Administrative Hearing that, while a vehicular connection to the Appellant's property had been previously shown, the connection had been removed due to safety concerns for the bank's customers exiting the drive-thru facility. Specifically, the concern is the potential conflict between cars exiting the adjoining property and those exiting the drive-thru facility as they make the U-turn south to exit the bank. In his Administrative Hearing Findings, Conclusion and Decision Bob Blanchard, the Administrative Hearing Officer, stated that a 5' wide sidewalk has been constructed along the western edge of the north parking lot on the Appellant's property to provide a pedestrian connection from his property to the public sidewalk along East Harmony Road. This connection effectively precludes vehicular cross access between the properties. • 3 Land Use Code, Division 3.2, Site Planning and Design Standards Article 3.22(D) Circulation and Parking "All vehicular use areas in any proposed development shall be designed to be safe, efficient, convenient and attractive, considering use by all modes of transportation that will use the system, (including, without limitation, cars, trucks, busses, bicycles and emergency vehicles)." Mr. Blanchard was presented the circulation plan proposed that impedes and compromises the safe and efficient use of vehicular pedestrian traffic. The one way exit from the drive-up lanes is 1) a safety hazard to existing parking spaces backing into the flow of this proposed traffic; 2) safety hazard to all on-coming traffic and pedestrians; 3) a forced congestion condition to the detriment of other normal means of ingress and egress. Staff Response: The site design for the Bank of Colorado project, as proposed and approved, does not create a circulation plan that compromises the safe and efficient use of vehicular and pedestrian traffic. The one-way exit for the bank's drive-thru traffic may enter the existing shared driveway without having to cross on-coming traffic. The existing parking spaces on the Appellant's property, along the shared driveway, already have to back out into the traffic flow lanes. The added traffic from the bank drive-thru is not expected to create a significant impact in this area. Also, there is very little pedestrian movement that will occur in this area of confluence for vehicular traffic. Article 3.22(E)(5) Points of Conflict "The lot layout shall specifically address the interrelation of pedestrian, vehicular and bicycle circulation in order to provide continuous, direct pedestrian access with a minimum of driveway and drive aisle crossings. Remedial treatment such as raised pedestrian crossings, forecourts and landings, special paving, signs, lights and bollards shall be provided at significant points of conflict." The Points of Conflict caused by the one-way exit will become a continuous vehicular and pedestrian safety issue. No remedial treatment or relief has been provided. Cimarron proposed to Mr. Blanchard a connection to the north parking lot as an alternative relief to the Points of Conflict Mr. Blanchard ruled against the connection without merit This connection was designed by Cimarron to accommodate access to any all proposed development. 4 Staff Response: • The Appellant's property has two existing points of ingress and egress, being the proposed shared driveway with the Bank of Colorado and the existing shared driveway with the Hampton Inn Hotel to the east. Both of these points of access connect to Oakridge Drive. With the approved Bank of Colorado plan there are two pedestrian connections between the Appellant's property and the bank's property. One would be on a public sidewalk along Oakridge Drive; the other would be from the north side of the Appellant's retail building to the south side of the bank building with enhanced and signed pedestrian crosswalks across the bank's drive-thru lanes. The Appellant's site plan was approved, recorded, and built without provision for a vehicular connection from his north parking lot to the Bank of Colorado property to the west. There would be a vehicular connection between the two properties (on the south side of each) via a shared driveway from Oakridge Drive. Article 3.22(H)(1)(3) Drive-In Facilities "The design and layout of drive-in facilities for restaurants, banks, or other uses shall provide adequate directional signage to ensure a free-flow through the facility." It was noted to Mr. Blanchard that the Drive-In Facility does not avoid potential . pedestrian/vehicle conflicts. Existing parking spaces, traffic flow congestion and pedestrian traffic from existing food uses and motel uses are clearly conflicts. No directional or control signage to adequately ensure any free-flow pedestrian or vehicle conflict is provided. Staff Response: The site plan for the Bank of Colorado does tie into the existing driveway from Oakridge Drive to the Appellant's property. The two-way intersection into the bank property is consistent with the off-site access easement and driveway as shown on the Appellant's approved and recorded site plan of August 8, 1997. The one-way exit for the bank's drive- thru traffic may enter the existing shared driveway without having to cross on-coming traffic if the exiting vehicle continues south to Oakridge Drive. The existing parking spaces on the Appellant's property, along the shared driveway, already have to back out into the traffic flow lanes, assumedly without problem. The added traffic from the bank drive-thru is not expected to create a significant impact in this area. Also, there is very little pedestrian movement that will occur in this area of confluence for vehicular traffic. The Bank of Colorado site plan does show a "Do Not Enter Sign" to be placed at the exit end of the one- way drive-thru lane and the necessary pedestrian crossings will have enhanced crosswalks with stop signs as warnings for the vehicular traffic. . 5 Staff Note: It is assumed that the Appellant is referring to Article (Section) 3.2.2 Access, Circulation and Parking in the above 3 citations under Land Use Code, Division 3.2. 6