HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018CV01 - Sutherland V. City Of Fort Collins, Et Al - 022H - Agenda Item Part 6CAppeal – Land Use Code Provisions
13
Staff Response:
Conditions of Approval, either recommended by staff or provided by the Planning
and Zoning Board, are permitted by the Land Use Code:
LUC Section 2.2.9 - Step 9: Conditions of Approval
The decision maker may impose such conditions on approval of the
development application as are necessary to accomplish the purposes
and intent of this Code, or such conditions that have a reasonable nexus to
potential impacts of the proposed development, and that are roughly
proportional, both in nature and extent, to the impacts of the proposed
development.
Appeal – Land Use Code Provisions
14
The Appellants’ second allegation:
“The PDP is not in compliance with the requirements of the General
Commercial Zone. The standards for General Commercial, 4.21 of the LUC,
has this to say: While some General Commercial District areas may continue to
meet the need for auto-related and other auto-oriented uses, it is the City's intent
that the General Commercial District emphasize safe and convenient personal
mobility in many forms, with planning and design that accommodates
pedestrians.”
Appeal – Land Use Code Provisions
15
The Appellants further state that:
“General Commercial is required to have infrastructure to allow pedestrian
access. The PDP failed to provide a pedestrian/bicycle pathway to the
commercial areas to the south, even though such a pathway is completely within
the realm of possibility.”
And:
“The failure to include a dedication of right of way as a condition of approval is
an unacceptable failure of the PDP to comply with the intent and specific
standards of the LUC.”
Appeal – Land Use Code Provisions
16
Staff Response:
• The Appellants’ Land Use Code reference is from Section 4.21(A) - Purpose of
the General Commercial zone district.
• A development’s transportation obligations are evaluated based on Land Use
Code Section 3.6.4 - Transportation Level of Service Requirements.
• A Traffic Impact Study was completed and reviewed for the project; Bicycle
and Pedestrian Levels of Service (LOS) were evaluated.
Appeal – Land Use Code Provisions
17
Staff Response:
• The Johnson Drive PDP contributes right-of-way and required street
improvements along Johnson Drive and Spring Court in accordance with City
Standards.
• The Appellants reference an additional trail connection that would cross the
Sherwood Lateral to the south, at the south end of Spring Court. This
connection is outside of the boundary of the PDP.
• This connection was not recommended as a requirement with the Johnson
Drive PDP because Bicycle and Pedestrian Levels of Service (LOS) was met.
Appeal – Land Use Code Provisions
18
The Appellants’ third allegation:
“The Planning and Zoning Board failed to properly apply Section
3.4.1(I)(2) of the Land Use Code.”
Appeal – Land Use Code Provisions
19
Staff Response:
• Section 3.4.1(I)(2) Visual Character of Natural Features, requires that
projects be designed to minimize the degradation of the visual character of
affected natural features within the site and to minimize the obstruction of
scenic views to and from the natural features within the site.
• The Appellants reference this LUC Section and its past application to a
different nearby project - The Summit on College Parking Garage Major
Amendment.
Appeal – Land Use Code Provisions
20
Section 3.4.1(I)(2) Visual Character of Natural Features, requires that projects
be designed to minimize the degradation of the visual character of affected
natural features within the site and to minimize the obstruction of scenic views to
and from the natural features within the site.
Johnson Drive PDP:
Section (3.4.1(I)(2) applies to the Sherwood Lateral at the southern portion of
the apartment project.
Summit on College Parking Garage (referenced by Appellants):
Section (3.4.1(I)(2) applies to Spring Creek Corridor southern portion of the
parking garage project.
Appeal – Land Use Code Provisions
21
Summit on College Parking Garage (referenced by Appellants):
LUC 3.4.1 -- Spring Creek considered natural feature affected by Summit
on College Parking Garage
Garage structure is adjacent to Spring Creek, which triggered the
establishment of a Buffer Zone on the north side of Spring Creek;
Appeal – Land Use Code Provisions
22
Johnson Drive Apartments PDP:
Section 3.4.1(I)(2) Visual Character of Natural Features, requires that projects be
designed to minimize the degradation of the visual character of affected natural
features within the site and to minimize the obstruction of scenic views to and from
the natural features within the site.
Staff Comments:
• Sherwood Lateral is currently a highly degraded resource;
• The PDP provides ecological and visual enhancements to the Sherwood Lateral
Ditch as recommended by staff;
• The PDP demonstrated compliance with standard 3.4.1(I)(2), as described on
Page 8 of the staff report.
Appeal – Land Use Code Provisions
23
Johnson Drive Apartments PDP:
Section 3.4.1(I)(2) Visual Character of Natural Features, requires that projects be
designed to minimize the degradation of the visual character of affected natural
features within the site and to minimize the obstruction of scenic views to and
from the natural features within the site.
Staff Comments:
• Additionally, there are no scenic views to or from the Sherwood Lateral that are not
already obstructed by the PDP’s existing buildings, and the MAX wall to the west.
• To comply with Section 3.4.1(I)(2), no further recommendations were made other
than the enhancements to the Sherwood Lateral buffer what were discussed in the
Staff Report.
Appeal – Land Use Code Provisions
24
The Appellants’ fourth allegation:
“The Planning and Zoning Board failed to properly apply Section 3.10.5(F)(3) of
the Land Use Code.”
Appeal – Land Use Code Provisions
25
3.10.5 -- Development Standards for the Transit Oriented Development (TOD)
3.10.5(F)(3) - Character and Image, Building Height
(3) Buildings greater than two (2) stories in height shall also be designed so that
upper portions of the building are stepped back from the base. The adequacy of
upper floor step-backs shall be determined by the extent to which they advance the
following objectives:
(a) providing pedestrian scale along sidewalks and outdoor spaces;
(b) enhancing compatibility with the scale and massing of nearby buildings;
(c) preserving key sunshine patterns in adjacent spaces; and
(d) preserving views.
Appeal – Land Use Code Provisions
26
Staff Comments:
Upper floor step-backs were compliant with the standard;
All four objectives were considered and were addressed:
(a) providing pedestrian scale along sidewalks and outdoor spaces;
(b) enhancing compatibility with the scale and massing of nearby buildings;
(c) preserving key sunshine patterns in adjacent spaces; and
(d) preserving views.
Appeal – Land Use Code Provisions
27
(a) providing pedestrian scale along sidewalks and outdoor spaces;
(b) enhancing compatibility with the scale and massing of nearby buildings;
(c) preserving key sunshine patterns in adjacent spaces; and
(d) preserving views.
Key conclusions presented:
• Transition space provided along the streets with new detached sidewalks, plaza space,
street trees and foundation plantings;
• Materials and design details are used to provide a comfortable pedestrian scale;
• Courtyards and façade step-backs are provided around all four sides of building;
• No substantial shadowing impacts;
• Public views were addressed, no additional adverse impacts;
Building Standards
28
Section 3.5.1(C) Building Size,
Height, Bulk, Mass, Scale.
1. Section 3.5.3. “Variation in
massing” requirements
satisfied
2. High quality, four-sided
building mass and material
placement
3. Effective use of exterior
courtyards around the
building
Building Mass and Scale
29
• Material palette –
brick (two tones),
• textured metal panels,
• masonry block, and
green screens along
Sherwood Lateral
• One Condition of
Approval
recommended to
confirm material
colors.
Building Details
30
• Materials and detail
provided meet Section
3.5 building
requirements and TOD
standards
• Recessed aluminum
windows
• Perimeter Street design
elements scaled to
human proportions –
cornice, sun shades,
brick detailing.
31
View From
Johnson
Drive
32
View From
Sherwood
Lateral
33
View From
MAX
Guideway
Appeal – Land Use Code Provisions
34
The Appellants’ fifth Land Use Code allegation:
The Appellants allege that the parking mitigation strategies are “inherently
unenforceable and inconsistent with the Land Use Code.”
The Appellants state:
“This Grounds for the Appeal asserts that these provisions of the LUC are the
equivalent of an unconstitutional law and must be deemed a nullity when
considering the sufficiency of the PDP.”
Appeal – Land Use Code Provisions
35
The Appellants state:
“It is unquestionable that no party including the city has any right or authority to
enforce a condition, for example, that all residents of the proposed residential
housing project be provided with transit passes at any given time in perpetuity.
Consequently, allowing a reduction in the number of parking spaces required by the
applicant because of some sort of unenforceable and problematic ‘promise’ has been
made simply contravenes the legislative intent and operation of the LUC. Such a
‘mitigation’ strategy was imprudent in its origins and is, unfortunately, characteristic of
the lack of understanding that attends the Planning Department as a whole.”
“As a consequence of the above discussion, both mitigation strategies
proposed by the applicant must be construed as nullities. The parking proposed
is insufficient to meet the standards required in the TOD”.
Appeal – Land Use Code Provisions
36
The Appellants allege that the parking mitigation strategies are
“inherently unenforceable and inconsistent with the Land Use Code.”
Staff Response:
The PDP complies with the TOD off-street parking standards.
Two TOD parking mitigation strategies were provided: transit passes and
shared cars.
The City has the authority to enforce all required elements of an approved
project plan, including all parking provisions.
Assertions of Appeal
37
I. Failure to conduct a fair hearing in that the Board
considered evidence relevant to its findings which
was substantially false or grossly misleading.
II. Failure to properly interpret and apply relevant
provisions of the Land Use Code.
38
Landscape
Plan
39
Section – 3.2.1
Minimum Landscaping
Requirements met
-Perimeter tree
stocking met
-tree mitigation met
-seven perimeter trees
saved
-perimeter landscape
beds provided
-buffer enhancements
provided; buffer
influenced building
design
Buffer Zone
Diagram
40
Vehicular Parking – TOD Standards
41
Land Use Code
3.2.2(K)(1)(a)-1-a:
Multi-family dwellings and
mixed-use dwellings within
the Transit-Oriented
Development (TOD) Overlay
Zone may reduce the
required minimum number of
parking spaces by providing
demand mitigation elements
as shown in the following
table:
Vehicular Parking
42
Residential: 254 Residential spaces required (0.62 per bed) with demand mitigation
Commercial: 1 space required (249 total) LUC 3.2.2(K)(2)(a)
Total Provided:
261 spaces provided total (260 residential @ 0.63 per bed, 412 beds)
Without mitigation: 309 required (residential beds, 0.75 spaces)
Calculations --Total required residential vehicular parking with demand mitigation:
o 309 – 61 = 248 spaces, plus 6 car share spaces (254 spaces);
o 1 general office parking space;
o 255 spaces total required with TOD demand mitigation, 6 of which accommodate
shared vehicles
Site Plan – Preliminary Design Submittal
43
30%
reduction
requested
0.52
per
bed