The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPOUDRE VALLEY PLAZA P.U.D., PAD G - MAJOR AMENDMENT - 30-95C - DECISION - CORRESPONDENCE-HEARINGI � I \ �NVI�. /'�f/�fA.�I.C./�/=/ /L • �..�._1..1A��(JV_�_ I_V\/'+ Y `� ��0��¢�+�� i�f{RILIL 3731 C�°x7o,v/�o r}✓e SQtz- �24-�/0� �G�f/�� f✓o�F/�,y�lt/ 9_�0 �i�t o�'_.v'_v„_ `�—aD o� � �— ��i'_/� ,I ,I �I ,I a it 'rid City of Fort Collins — Type 1 Administrative Hearing Findings, Conclusions, and Decision Administrative Hearing Date: September 14, 2004 Poudre Valley Plaza PUD, Pad G — Major Amendment #30-95C Date of Decision: September 28, 2004 Page 7 DATED THIS 28TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2004. Linda C. Michow, Hearing Officer LCM\57069.33M6238.1 City of Fort Collins — Type 1 Administrative Hearing Findings, Conclusions, and Decision Administrative Hearing Date: September 14, 2004 Poudre Valley Plaza PUD, Pad G — Major Amendment #30-95C Date of Decision: September 28, 2004 Page 6 3. Article 4 — Districts. Division 4.19 — Neighborhood Commercial Zone District The evidence presented at the hearing, including the information provided in the Staff Report, adequately shows that the Project complies with Division 4.19 and the regulations contained therein concerning the NC Zone District. As noted in the Staff Report, mixed use dwelling units are permitted uses within the NC Zone District, subject to administrative review. Moreover, the proposed building ties into the existing neighborhood center to form "an integral, town -like pattern of development" that will serve the surrounding residential neighborhoods. The Hearing Officer also notes that the adjacent residents who testified at the hearing acknowledged that they use the Poudre Valley Plaza for retail shopping. For these reasons, the Hearing Officer finds that the Project complies with Division 4.19 of the Land Use Code. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Hearing Officer's Findings and Conclusions are hereby summarized as follows: 1. The Major Amendment complies with the procedures set forth in Section 2.2.10(B), Major Amendments, of the Land Use Code. 2. The Project complies with all applicable General Development Standards contained in Article 3 of the Land Use Code and meets the special building height review criteria. 3. The Project complies with all applicable Land Use and Development Standards contained in Article 4, Division 4.19 of the Land Use Code. DECISION The Major Amendment for Poudre Valley Plaza PUD — Pad G, Case No. 30-95C is hereby approved. LC M \57069.33\486238.1 City of Fort Collins — Type 1 Administrative Hearing Findings, Conclusions, and Decision Administrative Hearing Date: September 14, 2004 Poudre Valley Plaza PUD, Pad G — Major Amendment #30-95C Date of Decision: September 28, 2004 Page 5 of architecture and site design within a context of harmonious neighborhood planning and coherent environmental design, to protect access to sunlight, to preserve desirable views and to reinforce downtown and designated activity centers." In order to allow building heights in excess of forty feet, the application must meet the criteria set forth Section 3.5.1(G) which include the maintenance of desirable views; reduction in shadow impacts; maintenance of privacy of adjacent properties; and compatibility with neighborhood scale. The Planning Staff Report comprehensively outlines the Project's compliance with the special height review criteria. The Hearing Officer adopts and incorporates these findings from the Staff Report. In summary, the Hearing Officer finds that the Project will not alter the quality of desirable views within the area. Regarding shadow and light concerns, the shadows created by the building will affect the parking lot on the site and will have no effect on adjacent properties. Moreover, the Project will not impact the privacy of adjacent properties because, it is separated from the existing single-family residential neighborhoods to the east by the existing building on Pad 'F' and Century Drive. Finally, the height of the buildings meets the neighborhood scale compatibility criteria as in Section 3.5.1(G). Although one adjacent resident objected to the three-story height of the building, the resident could provide no specific reasons for her objection. Moreover, as the Applicant's representative pointed out, the proposed building was always intended to be a three story building. In fact, under the applicable zone district regulations, five stories is an allowable height. As the Case Planner (Mr. Olt) explained at the hearing, the Land Use Code does not prohibit heights in excess of forty feet; rather the Code simply requires an analysis of impacts of the heights with regard to the special building height review criteria. For these reasons, the Hearing Officer finds that the Project meets the criteria set forth in Section 3.5.1(G) in that the portions of the building exceeding forty feet do not have a substantial or detrimental impact on adjacent properties. LC M \57069.33\486238.1 City of Fort Collins — Type 1 Administrative Hearing Findings, Conclusions, and Decision Administrative Hearing Date: September 14, 2004 Poudre Valley Plaza PUD, Pad G — Major Amendment #30-95C Date of Decision: September 28, 2004 Page 4 every one bedroom unit and a minimum of 1.75 spaces for every two bedroom unit. As the Staff Report explains, the Project includes four one -bedroom units and twelve two -bedroom units, thus requiring a minimum of twenty-seven parking spaces. The Project proposes to construct a basement parking garage containing twenty-eight parking spaces. These parking spaces will be sold with each individual dwelling unit. At the hearing public testimony by neighboring residences focused almost exclusively on the issues of adequate parking, speeding, and traffic congestion on Arbor Avenue. It is clear from the testimony that the parking problems currently exist, based in large part on the apartment complex called Four Seasons located across from this Project along Arbor Avenue. The residents of Four Seasons apparently use on -street parking as well as the off-street parking provided by Poudre Valley Plaza in order to avoid paying a monthly charge for garages provided on the Four Seasons site. City staff testified that parking on both sides of Arbor Avenue is allowed because it is a local street. Parking on both sides of a local street is utilized as a traffic calming measure in order to reduce vehicle speeds. If parking on Arbor Avenue were eliminated on one side, City staff testified, complaints about speeding would most likely increase. Based on this testimony, the Hearing Officer finds that the concern about parking and traffic is an on -going, existing problem that is not the responsibility of this Applicant to solve. The Project at issue here will provide more than the required number of parking spaces for the sixteen dwelling units. Moreover, the parking spaces will be sold with the condominium dwelling units, so the likelihood of these residents parking on Arbor Avenue is very low. Finally, any overflow parking will be allowed to park in the parking lot internal to the Project site. For these reasons, the Project meets and exceeds the minimum parking standards set forth in Section 3.2.2(K)(1). Section 3.5.1 - Building Height. Section 3.5.1(G) requires a special review process in cases where a building or structure is proposed to be in excess of 40' in height. The building on Pad G includes various building heights, from 36'-8" high in some places to the highest point on the building on the north side measuring 48'-8" in height. As stated in Section 3.5.1(G), the intent of this section "is to encourage creativity and diversity LCM\57069.33M6238.1 City of Fort Collins — Type 1 Administrative Hearing Findings, Conclusions, and Decision Administrative Hearing Date: September 14, 2004 Poudre Valley Plaza PUD, Pad G — Major Amendment #30-95C Date of Decision: September 28, 2004 Page 3 2. Article 3 — General Development Standards. The Major Amendment request meets all of the applicable standards in Article 3 — General Development Standards. In particular, the Staff Report identifies the Project's compliance with the following provisions: Section 3.2.1, Landscaping and Tree Protection; Section 3.2.2, Access, Circulation and Parking; Section 3.3.5, Engineering Design Standards; Section 3.5.1, Building and Project Compatibility; and Section 3.5.3, Mixed Use, Institutional and Commercial Buildings. There was no evidence presented at the hearing to contradict the findings in the Staff Report relative to the Project's compliance with Sections 3.2.1 (Landscaping), 3.3.5 (Engineering Design Standards), 3.5.3 (Mixed Use, Institutional and Commercial) and, therefore, the Hearing Officer upholds and incorporates these specific findings in this decision. A discussion of the Project's compliance with Section 3.2.2 (concerning on -site parking) and Section 3.5.1 (concerning building height) follows. Section 3.2.2. - Access, Circulation and Parking. The Planning Staff Report states that the Project complies with Section 3.2.2(C)(4)(a) in that it provides secure and conveniently located bicycle parking in the amount of 6.3%, which is in excess of the minimum requirement of 5%. No evidence was presented at the hearing to oppose this finding; therefore the Hearing Officer finds the Project in compliance with Section 3.2.2(C)(4)(a). Similarly, the Staff Report indicates that the Project complies with Section 3.2.2(C)(5) by providing pedestrian and bicycle connections to other major pedestrian and bicycle destinations. Because there has been no evidence or testimony introduced at the hearing in opposition to this finding, the Hearing Officer finds the Project in compliance with subsection (C)(5) of Section 3.2.2 based on the findings presented in the Staff Report. For the same reason, the Hearing Officer finds that the Project complies with Section 3.2.2(D), which requires that the Project must provide safe, convenient and efficient bicycle, pedestrian, and vehicular movement to and through the Project. The Hearing Officer specifically finds that the Project will provide two vehicular access points with one access directly to the underground residential parking garage. Section 3.2.2(K)(1)(a) requires that for each attached residential dwelling unit, there shall be parking spaces provided as follows: a minimum of 1.5 spaces for LCM\57069.331486238.1 City of Fort Collins — Type 1 Administrative Hearing Findings, Conclusions, and Decision Administrative Hearing Date: September 14, 2004 Poudre Valley Plaza PUD, Pad G — Major Amendment #30-95C Date of Decision: September 28, 2004 Page 2 PUBLIC HEARING: The Hearing Officer, presiding pursuant to the Fort Collins Land Use Code, opened the hearing at approximately 6:00 p.m. on September 14, 2004 in the City Administrative Building located at 281 N. College Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING: Evidence presented to the Hearing Officer established that the September 14, 2004 administrative hearing was properly posted, legal notice mailed and notice published. RECORD OF HEARING: The Hearing Officer accepted into the record the following evidence: (1) Planning Department Staff Report; (2) supporting documents submitted by the Applicant and the Applicant's representatives; (3) sign -in sheet for public testimony; and (4) an audio tape of the administrative hearing. The City of Fort Collins Land Use Code ("LUC"), and the formally promulgated policies of the City are made part of the evidence and record considered by the Hearing Officer. FINDINGS OF FACT Based on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Hearing Officer finds the following: 1. The Applicant has met the Criteria of Article 2 - Administration. The Applicant's request satisfies and conforms with the applicable requirements of Article 2 in that it meets the requirements of a major amendment to an approved project development plan. Because the request will increase the number of dwelling units from seven (7) to sixteen (16), the increase in dwelling units exceeds 1 %, which is the maximum increase or decrease in density permitted under a minor amendment process. Therefore, in accordance with Section 2.2.10, the application must be processed as a major amendment subject to a Type 1 administrative hearing. No evidence was presented at the hearing to contradict the finding that this Major Amendment request was processed in the same manner as the original PDP. Therefore, the hearing officer finds that this request conforms with the applicable requirements of Article 2 of the LUC. LCM\57069.33\486238.1 L S. CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER TYPE 1 ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND DECISION ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING DATE PROJECT: APPLICANT: September 14, 2004 Poudre Valley Plaza PUD, Pad G, Major Amendment - #30-95C Lockwood Architects c/o Dana Lockwood 217 Jefferson Street Fort Collins, Colorado 80524 OWNER: Poudre Plaza, LLC 1027 West Horsetooth Road Fort Collins, Colorado 80526 HEARING OFFICER: SUMMARY OF DECISION: Linda Michow, Esq. Gorsuch Kirgis LLP Tower I, Suite 1000 1515 Arapahoe Street Denver, Colorado 80202 Approval PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND PROCEDURE The Applicant is requesting an amendment to the Poudre Valley Plaza Planned Unit Development ("PUD" or "Property") to increase the number of residential dwelling units from seven to sixteen units within a proposed mixed use building on Pad G. The proposed building will be located on the southeast corner of Poudre Valley Plaza, an existing neighborhood center containing a mix of office, retail, personal service, financial, and restaurant uses in seven buildings. The mixed -use building will contain an underground parking garage containing 28 spaces for parking by the residents of the dwelling units. Under the Fort Collins Land Use Code, where an amendment increases the number of units within a PDP by more than 1 %, the request must be processed as a major amendment to the underlying PDP. ZONE DISTRICT: The property is zoned NC- Neighborhood Commercial Zoning District. LC M \57069.334486238.1 Comm, Ay Planning and Environmenta. --rvices Current Planning City of Fort Collins September 29, 2004 Participant in the Poudre Valley Plaza PUD, Pad U, Major Amendment hearing: Enclosed is a copy of the Type I Administrative Hearing Findings, Conclusions, and Decision for the Poudre Valley Plaza PUD, Pad'G' (The Promenade) - Major Amendment - #30-95C. This final decision may be appealed to the City Council in accordance with Section 2-48 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins. The appellant must submit written notice of appeal, reasons for the appeal and a filing fee of $100 to the City Clerk's Office within 14 calendar days of the date of final action by the Hearing Officer, being September 28, 2004. Information regarding the grounds for appeal is available on the City Clerk's page of the City's website at hM2://fcgov.com/cityclerk/appeals/php If appealed, the City Clerk will place the item on the Council agenda for hearing as expeditiously as possible. Written notice of an appeal from a final decision of the Hearing Officer to the City Council is given by the City Clerk to the appellant, the applicant and all other parties -in - interest 10 days prior to the date set for the hearing. An appeal of the Hearing Officer's final decision is based on the minutes of the proceedings at the Administrative Hearing and any other materials received by the Hearing Officer. New evidence may not be considered on an appeal. The City Council may uphold, overturn, or modify the decision of the Hearing Officer. If you have specific questions about the appeal process, please contact me at 221-6341. Sincerely, D�-- Stephen Olt, City Planner 281 North College Avenue • PO. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6750 • FAX (970) 416-2020