HomeMy WebLinkAboutDecisions - Administrative Hearing - 05/09/2011CITY OF FORT COLLINS
ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER
TYPE 1 ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING
AMENDED FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION
ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING DATE
PROJECT NAME:
CASE NUMBER:
APPLICANT:
OWNER:
HEARING OFFICER:
April 25, 2011
Ridgewood Hills Residences (4"' Filing),
Project Development Plan (PDP)
#30-10
Hendricks Communities
c/o J. Marc Hendricks
7350 East Progress Place, #208
Greenwood Village, CO.
Loren R. Snyder
7747 Promontory Drive
Windsor, CO. 80550
Richard V. Lopez
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request for 146 qualified affordable multi -family
dwelling units on 10.4 acres located on the north and south side of Avondale Road (future
extension), southeast of Triangle Drive, and north of Peyton Drive. The property is zoned
LMN, Low Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood and MMN, Medium Density Mixed -Use
Neighborhood in the City of Fort Collins.
SUMMARY OF HEARING OFFICER DECISION: Approval
ZONING DISTRICT:
The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows:
N: LMN; existing single-family residential (Ridgewood Hills)
E: MMN; undeveloped (Shenandoah Property)
S: MMN; existing single-family residential (Ridgewood Hills)
W: LMN; existing single-family residential (Ridgewood Hills)
BACKGROUND:
I
1981: The property was annexed as part of the Trilby Heights Second Annexation
in June, 1981.
1984: The property is part of Parcel J - Office/Research & Development, and
Parcel K - Office/Research & Development of the Del Webb Property Master Land Plan
that was approved by the Planning & Zoning Board in October, 1984.
1994: The property is part of Parcel A-12 - Cottage Homes and Parcel A-13 -
Multi -Family of the Ridgewood Hills, Overall Development Plan (ODP) that was approved
by the Planning & Zoning Board in June, 1994.
1996: The property is part of Parcel A-12 - Cottage Homes, Parcel A-13 -
Multi -Family, and Parcel A-14 - Business Services of the Amendment to the Ridgewood
Hills, ODP that was approved by the Planning & Zoning Board in July, 1996.
1997: The property was zoned LMN and MMN with the adoption of the Land Use
Code in March, 1997.
2000: The property was subdivided and platted as Tracts N & T of the Ridgewood
Hills PUD, Third Filing in March, 2000.
In all of these previous plans for the area, a mixture of housing types, including
multifamily was envisioned. Such a mixture of housing options provided housing
opportunities for a diverse range of residents. The size and configuration of these units
(one and two bedroom) can make them more affordable than larger single family
detached dwelling units.
NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING: The LUC does not require that a neighborhood meeting
be held for development proposals that are not subject to a Planning and Zoning Board
(Type 2) review. However, a City -sponsored and facilitated neighborhood information
meeting was held on September 20, 2010, for the Ridgewood Hills Residences (4"'
Filing), PDP development proposal. The project as presented at that meeting contained
180 dwelling units in buildings that were mostly 3 stories in height. The landscape buffer
setbacks from the existing single-family homes to the south and west were minimal based
on the requirements in the LUC.
It is important to note that the applicant made changes in the design based, in part,
on comments expressed at the neighborhood meeting and subsequent staff reviews of
the project. The number of dwelling units decreased by 34 to a total of 146 dwellings and
decreased the density of the project. The landscape buffer setbacks and the plant
material included increased from the original PDP submittal. The height and massing of
the buildings decreased in areas near existing single-family homes.
2
A copy of the Questions, Concerns, Comments, and Responses that were
recorded at the meeting were attached to this Staff Report and reviewed by the Hearing
Officer prior to the April 25, 2011 hearing.
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING: Evidence presented to the Hearing Officer established
the fact that the hearing was properly posted, legal notices mailed and notice published.
PUBLIC HEARING: The Hearing Officer, presiding pursuant to the Fort Collins Land Use
Code, opened the hearing at approximately 6:30 p.m. on April 25, 2011, in the Council
Chambers, Fort Collins, Colorado.
HEARING TESTIMONY, WRITTEN COMMENTS AND OTHER EVIDENCE_
The Hearing Officer accepted during the hearing the following evidence: (1) Planning
Department Staff Report; (2) application, plans, maps and other supporting documents
submitted by the applicant to the City of Fort Collins; (3) opportunity for public testimony
was provided during the hearing, and approximately fifty-seven (57) members of the
public were present. The Land Use Code, the City's Comprehensive Plan (City Plan) and
the formally promulgated polices of the City are all considered part of the evidence
considered by the Hearing Officer.
The following persons attended the hearing:
From the City of Ft. Collins:
Steve Olt, Planning
Ward Stanford, Transportation
Lindsay Ex, Environmental Planner
From the applicant:
J. Marc Hendricks, Hendricks Communities
Linda Ripley, Ripley Designs, Inc.
Doug Wagner, Architect
Matt Delich, Delich Associates
From the Public: Members from the public testified. A copy of the sign in sheet is
attached hereto. A group of residents calling themselves the Ridgewood
Hills/Shenandoah Neighborhood Council ( hereinafter the "RHSNC") submitted a copy of
a December 20, 2010 report submitted to Steve Olt, Ft. Collins Planner. The Hearing
Officer reviewed this report prior to rendering his decision.
FACTS AND FINDINGS
K
A. ARTICLE 4 DISTRICTS: The proposed development is for 146 qualified
affordable multi -family dwelling units on 10.4 acres located on the north and south side
of Avondale Road (future extension), southeast of Triangle Drive, and north of Peyton
Drive. The property is zoned LMN, Low Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood and MMN,
Medium Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood in the City of Fort Collins. The proposed
project consists of:
* Tract A: zoned MMN ... south side of Avondale Road, contains
84 dwelling units in 4 residential buildings (plus parking and a
clubhouse) on 5.2 acres. The multi -family buildings on this tract will
be 2 stories and 3 stories in height (between 28'-9" & 39'-9"). They
will contain from 8 to 32 dwelling units per building. There will be a
total of 153 vehicle parking spaces for the proposed mix of
one -bedroom (20) and two -bedroom (64) units.
* Tract B: zoned LMN ... north side of Avondale Road, contains 62
dwelling units in 8 residential buildings (plus parking, a swimming
pool and cabana building) on 5.2 acres. The multi -family buildings on
this tract will be 2 stories (34'-0") in height. Seven of the buildings will
contain from 8 dwelling units and one building will contain 6 units.
There will be a total of 109 vehicle parking spaces for the proposed
62 two -bedroom units.
1. Division 4.5 - Low Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood
Multi -family dwellings are permitted in the LMN, Low Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood
District, subject to an administrative (Type 1) review. The LMN District is:
Intended to be a setting for a predominance of low density housing combined with
complementary and supporting land uses that serve a neighborhood and are
developed and operated in harmony with the residential characteristics of a
neighborhood. The main purpose of the District is to meet a wide range of needs
of everyday living in neighborhoods that include a variety of housing choices that
invite walking to gathering places, services and conveniences, and that are fully
integrated into the larger community by pattern of streets, blocks, and other
linkages. A neighborhood center provides a focal point, and attractive walking and
biking paths invite residents to enjoy the center as well as the small neighborhood
parks. Any new development in this district shall be arranged to form part of an
individual neighborhood.
Typically, Low Density Neighborhoods will be clustered around and integral with
a Medium Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood with a Neighborhood Commercial
Center at its core.
4
This proposal complies with the purpose of the LMN District as it is an infill project within
Ridgewood Hills, 3`d Filing that provides multi -family dwellings on a property that is
surrounded by developed and undeveloped properties containing residential uses. There
is existing single-family residential to the west and north. Properties to the south and east
are undeveloped.
Section 4.5(D) Land Use Standards
The proposal satisfies the applicable land use standards in the LMN District.
Section 4.5(E) Development Standards
The proposal satisfies the applicable development standards in the LMN District.
2. Division 4.6 — Medium Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood District
Multi -family dwellings are permitted in the MMN, Medium Density Mixed -Use
Neighborhood District, subject to an administrative (Type 1) review. The MMN District is:
Intended to be a setting for concentrated housing within easy walking distance of
transit and a commercial district. Secondarily, a neighborhood may also contain
other moderate -intensity complementary and supporting land uses that serve the
neighborhood. These neighborhoods will form a transition and a link between
surrounding neighborhoods and the commercial core with a unifying pattern of
streets and blocks. Buildings, streets, bike and walking paths, open spaces and
parks will be configured to create an inviting and convenient living environment.
This District is intended to function together with surrounding low density
neighborhoods (typically the LMN zone district) and a central commercial core
(typically a NC or CC zone district). The intent is for the component zone districts
to form an integral, town -like pattern of development, and not merely a series of
individual development projects in separate zone districts.
This proposal complies with the purpose of the MMN District as it is an infill project that
provides multi -family dwellings on a property that is surrounded by developed properties
and undeveloped properties containing residential uses. There is an existing
single-family residential to the south and west. Properties to the north and east are
undeveloped and unplanned.
Section 4.6(D) Land Use Standards
The proposal satisfies the applicable land use standards in the MMN District.
5
Section 4.6(E) Development Standards
The proposal satisfies the applicable development standards in the MMN — Medium
Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood Zoning District.
HEARING OFFICER'S FINDINGS: The Hearing Officer agrees with the Staff.that the
Ridgewood Hill Residences satisfy the applicable standards both in the Low Density
Mixed -Use Neighborhood District and the Medium Density Mixed Use Neighborhood
District. This mixture of single family and multifamily dwellings near commercial services
is a sound land use design. The eventual development of commercial uses on College
Avenue, southeast of Ridgewood will make this area a fully functioning integrated
neighborhood.
B. ARTICLE 3 - GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
1. 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:
Full Tree Stocking. The Landscape Plan satisfies the requirement set forth in
Section 3.2.1(D)((1)(c) in that
Street trees. The proposed street tree planting is in accordance with Section
3.2.1(D)(2)(a), providing trees at 30' to 40' on -center in the T wide parkways
(between curb and sidewalk) along Avondale Road, a collector street; and, street
trees at 30' to 40' on -center in the 5' wide parkway along Triangle Drive, a collector
street.
Minimum Species Diversity. The Landscape Plan satisfies the requirement set
forth in Section 3.2.1(D)(3) in that no one species of tree (deciduous or evergreen)
will exceed the allowable 15% of the total number of trees (45 trees) on the plan.
Buffering Between Incompatible Uses and Activities. In accordance with Section
3.2.1(E)(1), the placement and design of the buildings do adequately mitigate
potential conflicts between the existing single-family homes to the west and south
of the multi -family buildings on Tract A (south of Avondale Road) by providing
sufficient distance separation and plant material screening between the uses.
Separation distances between the rear lot lines for the existing single-family
G1
homes to the south and west and the drive aisles and parking areas in this
development range from 15' to 50'. These setback areas contain sufficient
deciduous and evergreen trees and shrubs that will provide visual buffers between
the developments. The multi -family buildings in this development will be set back
from the property lines between 80' to 100', thereby creating separation distances
of 100' to 125' between the single-family homes and the proposed multi -family
buildings. The buildings, or portions thereof, that will be closest to the
single-family homes will be 2 stories (28'-9") in height, which is similar in height to
the single-family homes. Also, the development site is to be lower than the
surrounding area, so the multi -family buildings closest to the single-family homes
will be no taller than those homes.
Landscape Area Treatment. The Landscape Plan satisfies the requirements set
forth in Section 3.2.1(E)(2) in that the landscape area treatment, especially related
to the foundation plantings, is being met.
Parking Lot Perimeter Landscaping. The Landscape Plan satisfies the
requirement set forth in Section 3.2.1(E)(4) in that trees are being provided at a
ratio of 1 tree/25 lineal feet along the public streets and 1 tree/40 lineal feet along
the side lot line. Screening from the surrounding residential uses consists of the
existing 6' high solid wood fences along the rear lot lines for the single-family
homes adjacent to Tract A and plant material that is 30' or higher.
Parking Lot Interior Landscaping. The Landscape Plan satisfies the requirement
set forth in Section 3.2.1(E)(5) in that there is a minimum of 6% interior
landscaping provided in the parking areas that are broken up into a number of
smaller lots containing 50 or fewer spaces.
2. Section 3.2.2. Access, Circulation and Parkinq
The proposal satisfies the applicable Access, Circulation and Parking standards,
including the following:
Required number of parking spaces. The development proposal satisfies the
parking requirements set forth in the LUC for the residential uses in this project.
• There are a total of 153 proposed parking spaces on -site for Tract A. They
will all be surface parking spaces. There will be 6 handicapped parking
spaces as part of the total spaces.
• There are a total of 129 proposed parking spaces on -site for Tract B. There
will be 67 surface parking spaces and 62 garage parking spaces in the
7
detached garages. There will be 7 handicapped parking spaces as part of
the total spaces.
• Section 3.2.2(K)(1) sets forth minimum parking requirements for residential
land uses. The minimum parking required for the overall project is as
follows:
30 spaces for the proposed 20 one -bedroom dwelling units, at 1.50
spaces per unit.
221 spaces for the proposed 126 two -bedroom dwelling units, at
1.75 spaces per unit.
The minimum handicapped parking required is 7 spaces for the total
of 282 parking spaces in the development.
There will be a total of 282 parking spaces in the development, with 13 of them
being handicapped spaces. Staff finds that the parking to be provided exceeds the
minimum requirements of the LUC for the proposed residential uses in the
development.
3. Section 3.2.4. Site Lighting
The proposed site lighting falls within the parameters of the allowable lighting levels set
forth in Section 3.2.4(C) and the design standards set forth in Section 3.2.4(D), thereby
satisfying the applicable standards in this section of the LUC.
4. Division 3.3 - Engineering Standards
Section 3.3.1. Plat Standards
The proposal complies with the general plat requirements as set forth in this section of
the LUC.
Section 3.3.5. Engineering Design Standards
The project complies with applicable design standards, requirements and specifications
for services as stated in this section of the LUC.
Storm Drainage. The storm drainage outfall for this development will be at the
southeast corner of the site. The storm water will be piped south, ultimately
entering into the existing detention pond to the south in Ridgewood Hills, 3rd
Filing. This is to be a shared detention pond between the Ridgewood Hills
Residences Homeowner's Association (HOA) and the Ridgewood Hills, 3`d Filing
HOA. This is consistent with the approved Overall Ridgewood Hills drainage
plan. Now that Tracts A & B of the Ridgewood Hills Residences will be
contributing developed runoff to the pond in the Td Filing the maintenance is to be
shared with the Ridgewood Hills, 3rd Filing HOA. Stormwater has recommended
that the cost share be proportionate to the percentage of 100 year runoff volume
from these tracts that would be captured by the detention pond.
The RHSNC report included several claims regarding stormwater drainage and detention
ponds. Several recommendations were made. The Hearing Officer finds that the project
complies with applicable design standards, requirements and specifications for services
as stated in this section of the LUC.
5. Division 3.4 - Environmental, Natural Area, Recreational and Cultural
Resource Protection Standards
In December of 2010, staff made multiple site visits (including one visit with the applicant,
a representative from the. neighborhood council, and the applicant's representatives) to
assess the site's environmental features. Based on the site's proximity to mapped natural
habitats and features and concerns from the surrounding neighbors, the applicants were
asked to complete an Ecological Characterization Study for their project area.
Section 3.4.1(D)(1) Ecological Characterization Study states:
If the development site contains, or is within five hundred (500) feet of, a natural
habitat or feature, or if it is determined by the Director, upon information or from
inspection, that the site likely includes areas with wildlife, plant life and/or other
natural characteristics in need of protection, then the developer shall provide to
the city an ecological characterization report prepared by a professional qualified
in the areas of ecology, wildlife biology or other relevant discipline. The Director
may waive any or all of the following elements of this requirement if the city already
possesses adequate information required by this subsection to establish the buffer
zone(s) and the limits of development ("LOD"). The ecological characterization
study shall describe, without limitation, the following:
(a) the wildlife use of the area showing the species of wildlife using the area, the
times or seasons that the area is used by those species and the "value"
(meaning feeding, watering, cover, nesting, roosting, perching) that the area
provides for such wildlife species;
(b) the boundary of wetlands in the area and a description of the ecological
functions and characteristics provided by those wetlands;
(c) any prominent views from or across the site;
(d) the pattern, species and location of any significant native trees and other
native site vegetation;
(e) the bank, shoreline and high water mark of any perennial stream or body of
water on the site;
(f) areas inhabited by or frequently utilized by Sensitive and Specially Valued
Species;
(g) special habitat features;
(h) wildlife movement corridors;
(i) the general ecological functions provided by the site and its features;
Q) any issues regarding the timing of development -related activities stemming
from the ecological character of the area; and
(k) any measures needed to mitigate the projected adverse impacts of the
development project on natural habitats and features.
On January 19, 2011, an ECS was submitted to the City. Key findings within the ECS
include the following:
1. The closest confirmed population for a Preble's Meadow Jumping Mouse is
over four miles northwest of the project site.
2. No suitable habitat for listed special status species exists within or
immediately adjacent to the project site.
3. Some suitable nesting sites for raptors were identified in the larger
cottonwoods adjacent to the project site, but no nests, old or new, were
located within 500 feet of either Tract during the consultant's site visit.
4. Wetlands surrounding the project area included an. irrigation ditch
approximately 250' southeast of Tract A and within Pond 2. Please see
section 3.3.5 (above) for a discussion on the site's storm water drainage.
5. Noxious weeds, including Canada thistle, field bindweed, and diffuse
knapweed were identified on site. The City will work with the applicant to
determine best practices for these species during the Development
Agreement and throughout construction.
10
As no areas of natural features or habitats were found to be on the site and the
project will not affect those natural habitats or features within proximity to the site
(surrounding features varied in their distance from the southeast comer of the parcel
boundary from 250' to over 500'), staff has determined the proposal satisfies the
applicable standards set forth in this section of the LUC.
The Hearing Officer notes that the statements and concerns set forth in the
RHSNC environmental impacts have been addressed by Staff. Some of these concerns
are requests new criteria (radon, ambient noise monitoring network, etc.) and are beyond
the scope of this Hearing Officer's authority to require.
6. Division 3.5 - Building Standards
Section 3.5.1. Building and Project Compatibility
The proposal satisfies applicable Building and Project Compatibility standards, more
specifically:
Architectural Character. The proposed multi -family residential buildings will be 2
stories and 3 stories in height (between 28'-9" & 39'-9") and contain between 3 —
7 different rooflines at various heights (depending on the building), with gabled
ends on all four sides. The roofs will be sloped.
Building Size, Height, Bulk, Mass, Scale. The massing of the building facades will
be broken up with substantial wall plane variations, windows, and varying roofline
directions and heights. The 3 largest buildings (A, C and D in Tract A) will have
mid -structure breezeways that will help break up the horizontal massing of the
buildings.
Building materials. The proposed structures will consist of the following building
materials:
• The materials on all 4 sides of the buildings will consist of horizontal
cementitious fiberboard siding, brick as a foundation material, brick
columns that will vary in height from the first floor to the third floor, 30-year
composition shingles, and vinyl windows.
• The colors will be defined with the Final development plans.
These materials comply with the standard in Section 3.5.1(E)(1), which states:
Building materials shall either be similar to the materials already being used
in the neighborhood, or, if dissimilar materials are being proposed, other
11
characteristics such as scale and proportions, form, architectural
detailing, color and texture shall be utilized to ensure that enough similarity
exists for the building to be compatible, despite the differences in materials.
Section 3.5.2. Residential Building Standards
The proposal satisfies applicable Relationship of Dwellings to Streets and Parking
standards.
7. Division 3.6 - Transportation and Circulation
Section 3.6.2. Streets, Streetscapes, Alleys and Easements
The proposal satisfies the applicable standards located in this section of the LUC.
Section 3.6.4. Transportation Level of Service Requirements
The proposal satisfies the applicable Transportation Level of Service standards (see the
attached Traffic Impact Study), including the following:
General Standard. This development proposal satisfies Section 3.6.4(B) that
requires that all development plans adequately provide vehicular, pedestrian and
bicycle facilities necessary to maintain the adopted transportation Level of Service
standards contained in Part II of the City of Fort Collins Multi -Modal Transportation
Level of Service Manual for the following modes of travel: Motor vehicle, bicycle
and pedestrian.
Transportation Impact Study. This development satisfies Section 3.6.4(C) that
states:
"in order to identify those facilities that are necessary in order to comply
with these standards, development plans may be required to include the
submittal of a Transportation Impact Study, to be approved by the Traffic
Engineer, consistent with the Transportation Impact Study guidelines as
established in Chapter 4 of the Larimer County Urban Area Street
Standards."
The City's Traffic Operations Department did receive and review a Traffic Impact
Study (TIS) as part of the development review process and have made the
following comments and determinations:
The Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards (LCUASS) provide the
design standards for any new installation of public infrastructure including
streets. For example, the new portion of Avondale Road that would be built
12
with the proposed development would need to be built to LCUASS
standards.
* The LCUASS standards are not used to determine the designation of a'
street. They only serve as design standards for improvements. The City's
Master Street Plan is where street functional classification (for arterials and
collectors) is designated. The Master Street Plan provides a framework to
ensure an interconnected roadway network that will accommodate existing
and future traffic as development occurs. Developers are required to
construct collector streets adjacent to their developments that are shown on
the Master Street Plan. Using Avondale Road as an example, this
development would be required to construct a new portion of Avondale
adjacent to their property south of Triangle Drive because it is shown on the
Master Street Plan. As additional development occurs south of Triangle
those future developers would likely be required to eventually connect
Avondale down to Carpenter Road providing another point of access to the
neighborhood. To summarize, the Master Street Plan designates which
streets are collectors. The LCUASS standards define how new collectors
are built.
* The LCUASS standards represent the standards used today for
construction of new facilities. However, standards change over time.
There may be a day when today's standards change and streets that are
built according to those standards no longer meet future standards. That
does not mean that the function of the street changes. Triangle Drive is
shown on the Master Street Plan as a collector street from South College
Avenue to Avondale Road. It currently functions in that manner (i.e.
collecting traffic in the neighborhood and channeling it out to an arterial i.e.
College Avenue). The different design features do not change how the
street functions to serve the neighborhood.
* Single family homes are allowed to access directly from a collector street or
a local street.
* The need for left turn lanes is determined using Section 8.2.5 along with
Figure 8-1 in LCUASS. The forecast volumes on Triangle do not warrant
dedicated left turn lanes. This is pretty typical on neighborhood collectors.
It is not unusual for all movements to occur from one lane on these streets.
* Triangle Drive was built to the design standards that were used at the time
the street was built. If it was being built new today we would require bike
lanes. Since that isn't the case, Traffic Operations has talked about the
possibility of using traffic calming measures to help mitigate existing and
expected traffic impacts to make the street as user friendly as possible.
13
Since traffic calming itself can be controversial the City has committed to
working with the neighborhood to establish consensus on how to proceed
with acceptable measures.
* Per the Master Street Plan Avondale Road and Triangle Drive are collector
streets. With regards to traffic volumes, the LCUASS standards speak of
traffic volume capacity for different classes of streets. Technically, these
capacities represent a minimum car carrying capacity rather than a
maximum allowed traffic volume. A capacity of 3,500 vehicles per day
means that, at a minimum, a collector should be able to handle that many
vehicles. Despite that, Traffic Operations has interpreted that as a
maximum volume in the context of neighborhood streets -- recognizing the
impacts of traffic volume on residents. The city tries to limit the volume to
3,500 vehicles per day on minor collectors.
* Traffic Operations utilized existing 24 hour traffic volume counts on
Avondale Road and on Triangle Drive as the baseline for existing
conditions. With the addition of this development it is expected that both
streets will still have volumes below 3,500 vehicles per day.
* The Level of Service (LOS) analysis looks primarily at intersection
operations. Intersections tend to be bottlenecks where capacity is most
limited so it makes sense that if they work acceptably from a traffic carrying
perspective that the rest of the street will work. LOS does not measure the
negative impact of traffic on the quality of life in a neighborhood. As noted,
the City does try to use the volume criteria in LCUASS as a way to quantify
traffic impacts beyond LOS. However, when a development proposal
meets that general criteria City staff does not arbitrarily restrict
developments. As an alternative, Traffic Operations can offer traffic
mitigation options that, hopefully, can be based on a consensus opinion of
affected neighbors and that will minimize the negative effects of
neighborhood traffic.
The Hearing Officer notes that some members of the public that spoke at the April
25, 2011, hearing cited traffic impacts as their major concern. The RHSNC also claimed
that the traffic impacts were too great and recommended additional studies.
The Transportation Department provided a useful explanation of transportation
planning and design efforts in general and specifically in this area of Ft. Collins. It is clear
that the traffic impacts would be reduced with the completion of collector and arterial
streets, such as Avondale. When Avondale is completed to Carpenter and College
Avenue the transportation system should function more efficiently. The construction of
important roadways like Avondale is facilitated with developments like Ridgewood Hills
Residences.
14
8. OTHER MATTERS: RHSNC REPORT
The report prepared by the RHSNC has been reviewed by the Hearing Officer.
This report, like other information submitted, has been considered carefully in the
Hearing Officer's review of the proposed development. Many of the concerns and
recommendations are for future studies or delaying approval until additional studies can
be conducted. Some of the requests are outside the scope or beyond the authority of the
City or the Hearing Officer to grant.
The Hearing Officer has reviewed the statements by the RHSNC concerning
school impacts. These statements are in contradiction to those provided by the school
district during its review of the Ridgewood Hills Residences. The school impacts are
found to be reasonable.
The RHSNC report mentioned concerns about property value impacts. The
statements are conclusory and fail to provide any facts that relate to an undeveloped
housing development. The causes of any decrease in property values are many and
complex. The impact on property values is not a factor under consideration in this review.
The reasons for lower average taxable value of homes in the neighborhood are unknown
and the RHSNC request that property values be considered in reviewing the proposed
development is unreasonable.
The Hearing Officer acknowledges the petition attached to the RHSNC and
specific wording contained therein. The Hearing Officer has considered those concerns
in making this Decision.
CONCLUSIONS
A. The Ridgewood Hills Residences (4"' Filing), PDP contains uses permitted in the
LMN, Low Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood and MMN, Medium Density
Mixed -Use Neighborhood Zoning Districts, subject to Administrative Review and
public hearing. A public hearing was conducted on April 25, 2011. The Hearing
Officer has reviewed the proposal as set forth above and finds that the Medium
Density uses are appropriate in this location.
B. The Ridgewood Hills Residences (4t' Filing), PDP complies with applicable
standards contained in ARTICLE 3 - GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
the LUC, including Division 3.2 - Site Planning and Design Standards, Division 3.3
- Engineering Standards, Division 3.4 Environmental, Natural Area, Recreational
and Cultural Resource Protection Standards, Division 3.5 - Building Standards,
and Section 3.6 - Transportation and Circulation. The Hearing Officer finds that
the Ridgewood Hills Residences complies with the General Development
Standards.
15
C. The Ridgewood Hills Residences (4t' Filing), PDP complies with applicable Land
Use and Development Standards contained in ARTICLE 4 - DISTRICTS, Division
4.5 -Low Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood of the LUC. The Hearing Officer finds
that the Ridgewood Hills Residences complies with the Low Density Mixed -Use
neighborhood standards of the LUC.
D. The Ridgewood Hills Residences (4t' Filing), PDP complies with applicable Land
Use and Development Standards contained in ARTICLE 4 - DISTRICTS, Division
4.6 - Medium Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood of the LUC. The Hearing Officer
finds that the Ridgewood Hills Residences complies with the Medium Density
Mixed -Use neighborhood standards of the LUC.
E. The Ridgewood Hills Residences (4"' Filing), PDP is compatible with the
surrounding land uses. The Hearing Officer finds that the Ridgewood Hills
Residences is compatible with the residential uses in the surrounding area. In
addition these uses were contemplated in prior master plans and represent sound
land use planning principles.
F. Ridgewood Hills Residences is proposed as a 100 percent affordable
development. The application has stated that the final decision to make these
units affordable will be deferred to a later date. If the dwellings are not affordable,
the applicant will be required to pay the development review fees that were
previously waived.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the Ridgewood Hills Residences (4"' Filing), Project
Development Plan - #33-10.
HEARING OFFICER'S DECISION
16
The Hearing Officer agrees with the Staff recommendation and hereby approves
Ridgewood Hills Residences (4t' Filing), Project Development Plan-#33-10.
Dated May 9, 2011, per authority granted by Sections 1.49(#) and 2.1 of the Land Use
Code.
Richard V. Lopez
Richard V. Lopez
Hearing Officer
17