Loading...
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