Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMOUNTAIN VIEW EYE SPECIALISTS @ RIGDEN FARM - PDP - 5-11 - DECISION - CORRESPONDENCE-HEARINGa Project: Meeting Date: Administrative Public Hearing Sign -in PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY Z)p Name Address Phone Email a . s �liy r-- - `b of of ff r G✓f 73Z W. - �Y/ A1110 P3-1-3zsww (O P✓Cr In, coal ✓I ol, I 56 / c— <.- 4f70 -zoo Lf say ti a Mountain View Eye Specialists, #5-11 Administrative Hearing Findings, Conclusions, and Decision May 18, 2011 Page 9 of 9 DECISION This PDP satisfies the criteria set forth in Section 3.2.2(3) Altemative Compliance of the LUC as it relates to the maximum allowable parking for a medical office, at a ratio of 4.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet of leasable floor area, as set forth in Section 3.2.2(K)(2)(a) of the LUC. The request for 3 extra parking spaces (25 instead of 22) to accommodate the user's needs "accomplishes the purposes of this section equally well or better than would a plan which complies with the standards of this Section." The proposed plan does not detract from the contiguity or connectivity of the area; the design minimizes the aesthetic impact to the area as the parking is on the rear of the site and it is screened from the Timberline Church to the south; it creates no physical impact to any alternative modes of transportation; there is no impact to natural features; and the handicap ratio is still met and exceeded. The intent of this standard is met by the alternative plan as proposed. The Mountain View Eye Specialists at Rigden Farm Project Development Plan - #5-11, is hereby approved by the Hearing Officer without condition. Dated this 19th day of May, 2011, per authority granted by Sections 1.4.9(E) and 2.1 of the Land Use Code. Steve Olt City Planner Mountain View Eye Specialists, #5-11 Administrative Hearing Findings, Conclusions, and Decision May 18, 2011 Page 8 of 9 2. Section 3.5.3, Mixed Use, Institutional and Commercial Buildings a. The proposal complies with Section 3.5.3(B)(1) in that it opens directly onto a connecting walkway with the pedestrian frontage along Custer Drive. b. The proposal meets the exception to the build -to line standard in Section 3.5.3(B)(2), because a 15' utility easement exists from the edge of the Custer Drive Right -of -Way (ROW). The build -to line requirement would make the structure be setback no more than 15' from the ROW. This presents a few issues: one that work within the easement could damage the structure's foundation if it is exactly at the 15' mark and the proposed awnings would be within the easement. Per the Engineering Department's recommendation the applicant has moved the structure back 1'6" from the easement boundary, making the building 16'6" from the edge of ROW. 4. Neighborhood Information Meeting: There was no neighborhood meeting. SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS After reviewing the Mountain View Eye Specialists at Rigden Farm, Project Development Plan, staff makes the following findings of fact and conclusions: 1. The proposed land use is permitted in the NC, Neighborhood Commercial zone district. 2. The Project Development Plan complies with all applicable district standards of Division 4.23, the NC zone district, of the Land Use Code. 3. The Project Development Plan complies with all applicable General Development Standards contained in Article 3 of the Land Use Code. Staff recommends approval of the Mountain View Eye Specialists at Rigden Farm, Project Development Plan - #5-11. Mountain View Eye Specialists, #5-11 Administrative Hearing Findings, Conclusions, and Decision May 18, 2011 Page 7 of 9 determined the proposed plan does not detract from the contiguity or connectivity of the area; the design minimizes the aesthetic impact to the area as the parking is on the rear of the site and it is screened from the Timberline Church to the south; it creates no physical impact to any alternative modes of transportation; there is no impact to natural features; and the handicap ratio is still met and exceeded. Staff has determined that the intent of this standard is met by the alternative plan proposed. e. The proposal complies with Section 3.2.2(M)(1) in that it has approximately 15% landscaped area interior to the parking lot, exceeding the minimum requirement of 6%. 3. Section 3.2.4, Site Lighting a. The proposal complies with Design Standards of this Section. B. Division 3.3, Engineering Standards 1. Section 3.3.5, Engineering Design Standards a. The proposal complies with the design standards, requirements, and specifications for the services as set forth in this section. C. Division 3.5, Building Standards 1. Section 3.5.1, Building and Project Compatibility a. The proposal complies with Section 3.5.1(D) in that it provides a connecting walkway with a direct pedestrian connection to Custer Drive, without requiring pedestrians to walk through the parking area or cross a driveway. b. The proposal complies with Sections 3.5.1(B), (C) and (E). The building will be a 1-story structure with flat roofs of differing height on portions of the building. The building varies in height, with the maximum height at the top of the entry feature being 21' 6" high. Building materials will be a combination of cast stone and Exterior Insulation Finish System (stucco). The building's architectural character, scale and mass, and materials will be compatible with existing buildings in the surrounding area. Mountain View Eye Specialists, #5-11 Administrative Hearing Findings, Conclusions, and Decision May 18, 2011 Page 6 of 9 above, the decision maker shall take into account the number of employees occupying the building or land use, the number of expected customers or clients, the availability of nearby on -street parking (if any), the availability of shared parking with abutting, adjacent or surrounding land uses (if any), the provision of purchased or leased parking spaces in a municipal or private parking lot meeting the requirements of the city, trip reduction programs (if any), or any other factors that may be unique to the applicant's development request. The decision maker shall not approve the alternative parking ratio plan unless it: (1) does not detract from continuity, connectivity and convenient proximity for pedestrians between or among existing or future uses in the vicinity, (2) minimizes the visual and aesthetic impact along the public street by placing parking lots to the rear or along the side of buildings, to the maximum extent feasible, (3) minimizes the visual and aesthetic impact on the surrounding neighborhood, (4) creates no physical impact on any facilities serving alternative modes of transportation, (5) creates no detrimental impact on natural areas or features, (6) maintains handicap parking ratios, and (7) for projects located in D, L-M-N, M-M-N and C-C zone districts, conforms with the established street and alley block patterns, and places parking lots across the side or to the rear of buildings. o Applicant's Request. Section 3.2.2(K)(3) of the City's Land Use Code allows for alternative compliance to the maximum allowed parking count. The following relevant data is presented: The full time staff of the facility is 11 people. Six would be expected in six different exam rooms and six people would be expected in the waiting and frame display areas. Plus we would expect 2 people in vision therapy plus 1 in vision therapy waiting. This amounts to 26 users at the facility during a busy work day. As such, we propose 25 spaces in lieu of the 22 allowed by a strict interpretation of the code. o Staffs Analysis. Staff has reviewed the applicant's request against the criteria set forth in this section of the LUC and has determined that the request for 3 extra parking spaces to accommodate their user's needs "accomplishes the purposes of this Section equally well or better than would a plan which complies with the standards of this Section." Staff has also Mountain View Eye Specialists, #5-11 Administrative Hearing Findings, Conclusions, and Decision May 18, 2011 Page 5 of 9 2. Section 3.2.2, Access, Circulation and Parking a. The proposal complies with Section 3.2.2(C)(4)(a) in that it provides secure and conveniently located bicycle parking (2) in the amount of 5% of the total number of automobile parking spaces (25) on -site, meeting the minimum requirement of 5%. b. The proposal complies with Section 3.2.2(C)(5) in that it provides direct, safe, and continuous walkways and bicycle connections to major pedestrian and bicycle destinations in the surrounding area. c. The proposal complies with Section 3.2.2(D) in that it provides for safe, convenient, and efficient bicycle, pedestrian, and vehicular movement to and through the site. Vehicular access will occur via a shared north/south access from Custer Drive into the Timberline Church parking lot and an east/west access to Illinois Drive. d. The applicant has submitted an alternative compliance request to Section 3.2.2(K)(2)(a) regarding the number of parking spaces permitted on the site. o Alternative Compliance. Upon written request by the applicant, the decision maker may approve an alternative parking ratio that may be substituted in whole or in part for a ratio meeting the standards of this Section. (a) Procedure. Alternative compliance parking ratio plans shall be prepared and submitted in accordance with the submittal requirements for plans as set forth in this Section. Each such plan shall clearly identify and discuss the modifications and alternatives proposed and the ways in which the plan will better accomplish the purpose of this Section than would a plan which complies with the standards of this Section. The request for alternative compliance must be accompanied by either a traffic impact study containing a trip generation analysis or by other relevant data describing the traffic impacts of any proposed recreational or institutional land use or activity. (b) Review Criteria. To approve an alternative plan, the decision maker must first find that the proposed alternative plan accomplishes the purposes of this Section equally well or better than would a plan which complies with the standards of this Section. In reviewing the request for an alternative parking ratio plan in order to determine whether it accomplishes the purposes of this Section, as required Mountain View Eye Specialists, #5-11 Administrative Hearing Findings, Conclusions, and Decision May 18, 2011 Page 4 of 9 The property was originally platted in October 1999 as Tract A of Rigden Farm 1st Filing. Tract A of Rigden Farm is Filing was replatted into three (3) separate lots, as Rigden Farm 15th Filing in March of 2010. This PDP is proposed on Lot 2 of Rigden Farm 151h Filing. 2. Division 4.23 of the LUC. Neighborhood Commercial Zone District The proposed is considered a "professional office" and is permitted in the NC zone district subject to an administrative (Type 1) review. The PDP meets the applicable Development Standards as follows: Section 4.23(E)(1)(a) Overall Plan. The applicant has demonstrated that the development plan contributes to the existing development in the surrounding area in terms of street and sidewalk layout, building siting and character, and site design. 2. Section 4.23(E)(2)(d) Building Height. The height of the building is 21' 6" and the minimum for this zone district is 20'. 3. Article 3 of the LUC — General Development Standards: The Project Development Plan complies with all applicable General Development Standards as follows: A. Division 3.2, Site Planning and Design Standards 1. Section 3.2.1, Landscaping and Tree Protection a. The proposal complies with Section 3.2.1(D)(1)(c) in that it provides 'Tull tree stocking" within 50' of the building, according the standards as set forth in this section. b. The proposal complies with Section 3.2.1(E)(4)(b) in that the on -site parking areas, containing 25 spaces that will be screened from the Timberline Church to the south with shrub plantings and deciduous trees. c. The proposal complies with Section 3.2.1(E)(5) in that it provides interior landscaping in the parking area that exceeds the minimum requirement of 6% for a parking lot with less than 100 spaces. Mountain View Eye Specialists, #5-11 Administrative Hearing Findings, Conclusions, and Decision May 18, 2011 Page 3 of 9 • the standards located in Division 3.2 - Site Planning and Design Standards, Division 3.3 — Engineering Standards and Division 3.5 - Building Standards of ARTICLE 3 - GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS; and • the standards located in Division 4.23 - Neighborhood Commercial (NC) of ARTICLE 4 — DISTRICTS. "Offices, financial services and clinics" are permitted in the NC, Neighborhood Commercial Zoning District, subject to administrative (Type 1) review. The NC District is: Intended to be a mixed -use commercial core area anchored by a supermarket or grocery store and a transit stop. The main purpose of this District is to meet consumer demands for frequently needed goods and services, with an emphasis on serving the surrounding residential neighborhoods typically including a medium -density mixed -use neighborhood. In addition to retail and service uses, the District may include neighborhood -oriented uses such as schools, employment, day care, parks, small civic facilities, as well as residential uses. This proposal complies with the purpose of the NC District as it is an optometry practice serving the needs of the surrounding residential neighborhoods and is in close proximity to a neighborhood center (the King Scoopers shopping center located directly north of this site.) COMMENTS: 1. Background- The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows: N: NC, Neighborhood Commercial District — existing neighborhood center, King Soopers, Fuel Station, 1't Bank, etc.; S: LMN, Low Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood District — existing Timberline Church Campus; E: NC, Neighborhood Commercial District — existing Seven Oaks Academy and Little Acorns Preschool; W: NC, Neighborhood Commercial District and RL, Low Density Residential District — existing Chase Bank and single family residences across Timberline Road. The property was annexed in November, 1997 as part of the Timberline Annexation. Mountain View Eye Specialists, #5-11 Administrative Hearing Findings, Conclusions, and Decision May 18, 2011 Page 2 of 9 The Hearing Officer, presiding pursuant to the Fort Collins Land Use Code (LUC), opened the hearing at approximately 4:30 p.m. on May 11, 2011 in Conference Room NSVenti at 281 North College Avenue, 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 and the applicant's representatives to the City of Fort Collins; (3) a sign up sheet of persons attending the hearing; and (4) a tape recording of the hearing. The LUC, the City's Comprehensive Plan (City Plan), and the formally promulgated policies of the City are all considered part of the evidence considered by the Hearing Officer. The following is a list of those who attended the meeting: From the City: Steve Olt, City Planner Emma McArdle, City Planner From the Applicant: Amy Abel, 2519 S. Shields Street #1 H, Ft. Collins, Colorado Greg Abel, 2519 S.. Shields Street #1 H, Ft. Collins, Colorado Jerry Davidson, 6732 W Coal Mine Avenue #419, Littleton, Colorado From the Public: Steve Steinbicker, 4710 S. College Avenue, Ft. Collins, Colorado Peter Kelly, 225 E. Moncor Drive, Ft. Collins, Colorado Written Comments: None FACTS AND FINDINGS This PDP complies with the applicable requirements of the Land Use Code (LUC), more specifically: • the process located in Division 2.2 - Common Development Review Procedures for Development Applications of ARTICLE 2 - ADMINISTRATION; CITY OF FORT COLLINS ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER TYPE 1 ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION ADMIN HEARING DATE: May 11, 2011 PROJECT NAME: Mountain View Eye Specialists at Rigden Farm, Project Development Plan CASE NUMBER: #5-11 APPLICANT: Micah Taintor Ymker Building, LLC 3108 NW 15th St Ankeny, IA 50023 OWNER: Drs. Abel and Abel, Inc. 2519 S. Shields Street, Ste. 1 H Fort Collins, CO 80526 HEARING OFFICER: Steve Olt City Planner PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request for a 4,960 square foot optometry practice to be located on the vacant lot at 2111 Custer Drive, southeast of Timberline Road and Custer Drive (directly east of the Chase Bank building and north of Timberline Church). The property is located in the NC, Neighborhood Commercial zone district and the proposed use is permitted subject to a Type 1 (administrative) review and public hearing. SUMMARY OF HEARING OFFICER DECISION: ZONING DISTRICT: NC, Neighborhood Commercial STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the Project Development Plan (PDP). NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING: Evidence presented to the Hearing Officer established no controversy or facts to refute that the hearing was properly posted, legal notices mailed and notice published.