HomeMy WebLinkAboutASPEN HEIGHTS STUDENT HOUSING - PDP - PDP110018 - DECISION - FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & DECISIONAdministrative Public Hearing Sign -in
Project: 91 P&'hJ 116�2 & H7- Sf
Meeting Location:
Date:
PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY
Name
FK
Address
Phone
Email
(
v` S
`� Aq
I
`901sc
,yam
I
j p
f O
1
a QV.� i�V1104
\
k!
c, //
/ C� Q L
L y/
1n
x `�
LA)1v;
C
G�v� S
`ice �LvC
D n fie\ G�
�l D
R
s
US
iom
M
70 Z2Z 3.5-
M 9A Co
SCo %i m �7 -Z
O /
i2j I LL
�! �r .
�% D �aO F-;�-
Sji-+, / S8 G�i ric , c
J�,m- 2 a
�vJ
LObS
E �e ��e
3p3- o -t� 5
C i.
ob2rn
51a
No Vom`6
G .
qp- -
o 6mlC c�
ApAN0.t.
Zej
Y Ar-Yzo vJ
G I P FTC <acaq
qZo bqo 3
J,�J inAa ;gona-)lgwhoo• co
o i csleen
tO
o hoo. cpv.
fnt e ?ei4
tGv�
/s/U
(,�A/Ow
L"'(16r 4,colk\�,
17v y113-233s'
/
� r SN
Administrative Public Hearing Sign -In
Project: ., '-J tc /l/ H l G /-ATf'
Meeting Location:
Date:
PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY
Name
Address
Phone
Email
�cC�� I% a✓
3 L v/�iti G�
2o Yj3 I�i�
f/Llf/!!�%vscG- T��929 T
�-�l
el�o.1 d.(�NACaS � Vl2
or rvh
$�`7 V�/ � 0-/a/ �oS
6�He�-3
-taasleds Q,exAA'KA 1�
o
wu ,
Df v
�t,41J,7 . '-D47
@ cm-1,.
I(pttY�er,n fi «
Its$ !Y► c Yle n r�
sd-5txi�y
y�ai+,er•�ne o e �+vwPr..�n
,p
o�1v�t7`
MRND`t SSEN
$2'� [3�0� t I S� I o 2
`f2o - (, 3
/
WAY-Mgv�d J
+DP- bw tJSHE
13 90DwooD 5r 9(05 z 1
9?6-100 125
<F�e�—MR�SH�Z@ A%lw.C�1
. 2011
0
EA
4. The site is served by five public streets: Conifer Street, Redwood Street,
Blue Spruce Drive, Lupine Drive and New Vine Drive. All dwellings
adjoining these streets face the streets and feature direct connecting
walkways. All other dwellings face either a connecting walkway or a major
walkway spine.
5. Wetlands will be mitigated at a one-to-one ratio and prairie dogs will be
eradicated by a humane method and the loss of habitat will be mitigated
off -site in accordance with Section 3.4.1.
6. The project is feasible from a traffic engineering standpoint and bicycle
and pedestrian facilities are provided.
7. With regard to compliance with Section 3.6.5 - Transit Facilities, the
developer will provide a new bus shelter at the southwest corner of
Conifer and Redwood Streets.
8. The future conversion of the single family detached dwellings to Extra
Occupancy Rental Houses has been considered into the adequate
provision of off-street parking'. The Extra Occupancy Rental Housing
request is not presently before the Hearing Officer.
9. The P.D.P. complies with all other applicable General Development
Standards of Article Three.
DECISION
The Hearing Officer herein approves Aspen Heights, P.D.P. #110018, subject to
the following condition:
To ensure compliance with Section 3.5.1,at the time of submittal for
Final Plan, the applicant will provide a landscape plan and
architectural character elevations for the clubhouse.
Dated June 5, 2012, per authority granted by Sections 1.49 and 2.1 of the Land Use
Code.
Richard V. Lopez
Richard V. Lopez
Hearing Officer
RM
location with a connecting walkway to the clubhouse.
C. Public Testimony.
Some members of the public believed that residents were not likely to use the buses
and would drive their automobiles.
d. Hearing Officer.
The Hearing Officer finds that the P.D.P. complies with this standard.
16. Section 3.8.28 - Extra Occupancy Rental House Regulations.
a. Extra Occupancy Rental House Regulations.
After the issuance of certificates of occupancy, the single family detached dwellings will
seek conversion to Extra Occupancy Rental Houses to allow four to five tenants per
unit. This request is not before the Hearing Officer at this time.
b. Staff Analysis.
However, the minimum required parking ratio for such units (0.75 spaces per tenant)
has been utilized in accordance with Section 3.2.2(K).
C. Public Testimony.
There were a number of persons who objected to the Extra Occupancy Rental House
issue which was not part of the public hearing.
d. Hearing Officer.
Because the Extra Occupancy Rental House request is not before the Hearing
Officer, no findings are made. This matter will be reviewed at the appropriate
time and by the appropriate review body.
CONCLUSIONS
The Hearing Officer has reviewed all of the evidence and testimonies submitted
by the applicant, citizens and staff and being fully advised, makes the following findings
of fact and conclusions:
The P.D.P. complies with the 2007 North College Corridor Sub -area Plan.
2. The P.D.P. complies with the applicable criteria of the CCN zone district.
3. The three residential housing types are permitted in the CCN subject to
Administrative Review.
17
14. Section 3.6.4 - Transportation Level of Service Requirements.
a. Standards.
This standard 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. The Transit LOS standards contained in Part II of the Multi -
modal Transportation Manual will not be applied for purposes of this Section.
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 Streets Standards.
b. Staff Analysis.
Staff noted that a Transportation Impact Study has been reviewed and evaluated.
Aspen Heights provides for vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle facilities necessary to
maintain the City's adopted Level of Service Standards.
C. Public Testimony.
As noted above, concerns expressed by the public were the mass and scale of the
proposed development.
d. Hearing Officer.
The City's Traffic Engineer testified that he had reviewed the Transportation Impact
Study and found that it meets the adopted Level of Service Standards. The Hearing
Officer has also reviewed the study and agrees that P.D.P. meets this standard.
15. Section 3.6.5(B) - Location of Existing and Planned Transit Routes.
a. Standards.
The location of existing transit routes shall be defined by the Transfort Route Map in
effect at the time the application is approved. The location of planned transit routes
shall be defined according to the City Structure Plan, as amended.
b. Staff Analysis.
Aspen Heights is located on Route 8/ 81 which serves Conifer Street in both directions.
Currently, between North College Avenue and Lemay Avenue, a distance of one mile,
there are no bus shelters. With the student population and density of Aspen Heights,
Transfort is requesting a bus stop on Conifer Street at the southwest comer of the
intersection with Redwood. The applicant has agreed to provide bus shelter at this
16
The Hearing Officer has reviewed the plans and agrees with Staff. This P.D.P. meets
the standards.
13. Section 3.6.3 - Street Pattern and Connectivity.
a. Standard.
The local street system of any proposed development shall be designed to be safe,
efficient, convenient and attractive, considering use by all modes of transportation that
will use the system, (including, without limitations, cards, trucks, buses, bicycles,
pedestrians and emergency vehicles). The local street system shall provide multiple
direct connections to and between local destinations such as parks, schools, and
shopping. Local streets must provide for both intra-and inter -neighborhood connections
to knit developments together, rather than forming barriers between them. The street
configurations within each parcel must contribute to the street system of the
neighborhood.
b. Staff Analysis.
As noted above, two existing public streets will be extended to internally serve the
project - Blue Spruce Drive and Lupine Drive - thus providing both intra-and inter -
neighborhood connections. Two external streets will be extended. Redwood Street on
the east will be extended south to tie into the segment of Redwood Street that currently
exists north from Vine Drive. This will allow access to the downtown area without
having to use North College Avenue.
New Vine Drive on the south will be constructed from Redwood Street to the Aspen
Heights western property line. There is intervening land that remains vacant south of
New Vine Drive. This vacant parcel precludes the extension of Blue Spruce Drive south
into the Old Town North subdivision. Finally, Lupine Drive will be slubbed to the west
property line for a future connection.
As the vacant properties to the south and west actively develop, there will be
opportunities to complete the public street network via Blue Spruce (north - south) and
Lupine (east -west).
C. Public Testimony.
The public concerns were about the adequacy of the existing street network and
linkages to existing streets. Some feared that linking to existing streets would increase
traffic and funnel traffic through their neighborhoods.
d. Hearing Officer.
The Hearing Officer finds that this P.D.P. complies with the standards. The extension
of Blue Spruce and Lupine Drive provide the required neighborhood connections.
15
The roofs will feature composition shingles. For the single and two family dwellings,
small front porches are provided. Porches are also provided on two out of six multi-
family models. At the entrances, columns will feature cultured stone at the base.
In order to further promote compatibility, all of the multi -family dwellings that face
Redwood street will feature one front porch per unit and such porches will have a
minimum depth of six feet.
A site plan has been provided for the clubhouse but not a landscape plan or
architectural elevations. In order to ensure compliance, with Section 3.5.1, the following
condition of approval is recommended:
To ensure compliance with Section 3.5.1,at the time of submittal for
Final Plan, the applicant shall provide a landscape plan and
architectural character elevations for the clubhouse.
C. Public Testimony.
Concerns expressed by the public were the density of the proposed development.
d. Hearing Officer.
The Hearing Officer finds that the proposed height, mass bulks and scale of the
buildings are residential in character. The project will contribute to the transition of land
use intensity from North College Avenue to Redwood Street.
12. Section 3.5.2(C) - Relation of Dwellings to Streets and Parking.
a. Standards.
The standard requires that every front facade with a primary entrance to a dwelling unit
face the adjacent street to the extent reasonable feasible. Every front facade with a
primary entrance to a dwelling unit shall face a connecting walkway with no primary
entrance more than two hundred (200) feet from a street sidewalk.
b. Staff Analysis.
The Staff notes that both the connecting walkways and major walkway spines meet the
definitions as prescribed in this Section. In general, the project faces outward with
fronts of buildings on streets and parking lots are located to the sides and rears of
buildings.
C. Public Testimony.
The comments from the public did not focus on this standard.
d. Hearing Officer.
14
10. Section 3.4.1(N)(6) - Standards for Protection During Construction.
a. Standards for Protection During Construction.
For every development subject to this Division, the applicant shall propose, and the
Director shall establish, measures to be implemented during the actual construction
phase of the project to ensure protection of natural habitats and features and other
associated buffer zones.
b. Staff Analysis
This standard requires the humane eradication of the prairie dogs. The developer has
agreed to one week of live trapping with captured animals to be donated to the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service Ferret Research Center. Live capture would be followed by
fumigation. This methodology has been determined to be consistent with best
management practice and in compliance with the standard.
C. Public Testimony.
As noted above there were concerns about the trapping of the prairie dog colony. Once
trapping efforts were concluded after a week, the methods of extermination were called
out as an additional concern.
d. Hearing Officer.
The Hearing Officer reviewed the standard and the testimony by the Environmental
Planner and finds that this P.D.P. complies with the standard.
11. Section 3.5.1 - Building and Project Compatibility.
a. Compatibility.
This standard requires that new projects be compatible with the established
architectural character in the general area. The standard also states that where the
architectural character is not definitively established, new projects should establish an
enhanced standard of quality for future projects or redevelopment in the area.
b. Staff Analysis.
Staff notes that the site is bordered on the west by vacant land that is also zoned
Community Commercial - North College. The site is bordered on the north by Conifer
Street (collector) and on the south by the future New Vine Drive (arterial) and parcels
on the opposite side of both streets are also zoned CCN. Along the east is Redwood
Street (collector) beyond which are single family detached homes zoned RL, Low
Density Residential.
Aspen Height will feature single family detached dwellings, two-family dwellings and
multi -family dwellings ranging in size from three-plex to six-plex. All structures will be
two -stories in height and feature pitched roofs. Exterior materials include cementious
horizontal lap siding, cementious vertical panel board and cementious shingle siding.
13
feet of an area or feature identified as a natural habitat or feather on the City's Natural
Habitats and Features Inventory Map or if any portion of the development possesses
characteristics including, without limitation, wetlands, riparian areas or foothills forest.
To the maximum extent feasible, the development plan shall be designed and arranged
to be compatible and to protect natural habitats and features and the plants and
animals that enable them and integrated them within the developed landscape of the
community by (1) directing development away from sensitive resources, (2) minimizing
impacts and disturbance through the use of buffer zones, (3) enhancing existing
condition, or (4) restoring or replacing the resource value lost to the community (either
on -site or off -site) when a development proposal will result I the disturbance of natural
habitats or features.
b. Staff Analysis.
Staff noted that the parcel contains a small wetland approximately one-third of an acre
in size as confirmed by the Ecological Characterization Study. This wetland will be
mitigated at a ratio of one-to-one to be located in the regional detention pond. In
addition, the north -south drainage channel will be enhanced with plant material tolerant
of wetland conditions.
The subject parcel, when combined with the parcel to the west, contains an existing
prairie dog colony that exceeds 50 acres. The Ecological Characterization Study has
been reviewed and evaluated and confirms both the size and value of this colony. This
standard requires that the P.D.P. restore or replace the resource of the value lost to the
community (either on -site or off -site).
The developer will financially contribute to the restoration of property owned by the city
of Fort Collins Natural Areas Program. Based on actual costs the City will collect a
restoration fee of $900.00 per acre to be applied to the McKee Farm which is presently
undergoing restoration. In compliance with the standard, the developer will pay
$27,900.00. The applicant stated this they would attempt to trap and relocate prairie
dogs for one week before they resorted to extermination.
C. Public Testimony.
There were concerns expressed by a member of the public about the trapping of the
prairie dog colony. The person asked the applicant and the City to search for a
relocation site. If no sites were found, the methods of extermination were called out as
an additional concern.
d. Hearing Officer.
The Hearing Officer has reviewed this standard and the testimony of both members of
the public and staff. The efforts to relocate the prairie dog colony are reasonable. The
extermination that may occur is also reasonable with concern about the use of the
euthanized prairie dogs as food for other wildlife.
12
a. Residential and Institutional Parking Requirements.
Residential uses shall provide a minimum number of parking spaces. The proposed
conversion of 81 single family detached dwellings to Extra Occupancy Rental Houses
with four to five bedrooms per dwelling requires 0.75 spaces per tenant. The total
minimum number of spaces required would be 530.
b. Staff Analysis.
Staff noted that 759 parking spaces are provided which exceed the standard by 229
parking spaces. This allows sufficient guest parking and addresses the concern of
spillover parking.
C. Public Testimony.
There were some comments about the adequacy of this off-street parking provided.
Some stated that they believed it was inadequate.
d. Hearing Officer.
The Hearing Officer finds that the P.D.P. complies with this standard.
8. Section 3.2.5 - Trash and Recycling Enclosures.
a. Trash and Recycling Requirements.
This section requires the provision of areas, compatible with surrounding land uses, for
the collection, separation, storage, loading and pickup of recyclable materials.
Adequate, convenient space must be functionally located at multi -family residential land
use sites.
b. Staff Analysis.
Staff notes that the trash enclosures are made of a split -face concrete block. Truck
access is provided but screened by a metal gate. Walk-in access is not gated.
Enclosures are not within 20 feet of a public sidewalk. As currently proposed, there will
be between 12 and 14 enclosures each containing a three -yard dumpster and two 96-
galon containers for recyclable materials.
C. Public Testimony.
There were no comments about this requirement.
d. Hearing Officer.
The Hearing Officer finds that this P.D.P. meets the standard.
9. Section 3.4.1(A)(1)(b), (2)0),( C) - Natural Habitats and Features.
a. Natural Habitats and Features Requirements.
This section applies if any portion of the development site is within five hundred (500)
11
the movement of vehicles, bicycles pedestrians and transit, throughout the proposed
development and to and from surrounding areas, safely and conveniently and shall
contribute to the adequate directness, continuity, street crossings, visible interest and
security as defined by the standards in this section.
b. Staff Analysis.
Staff noted that the site is served by five public streets. The access, circulation and
parking are superior to a project that relies on a network of private drives. Where
private drives serve parking lots, the drives are designed as U-shaped loops that
feature head -in parking. These loops serve only one parking lot each and cannot act in
lieu of public streets.
c. Public Testimony.
Members of the public testified that they were concerned that the added development
would lead to increased traffic. They were concerned that added traffic and the
presence of children in the existing neighborhoods would lead to unsafe conditions.
Some asked if speed bumps should be considered.
d. Hearing Officer.
The Hearing Officer finds that this P.D.P. complies with this standard.
6. Section 3.2.2 -Access, Circulation and Parking - Bikes and Pedestrians.
a. Bikes and Pedestrians Standard.
The on -site bicycle system must connect to the city's on -street bikeway network. The
on -site pedestrian system must provide adequate directness, continuity, street
crossings, visible interest and security as defined by the standards in Section 3.2.2.
b. Staff Analysis.
Staff noted that the dwellings that do not face a public street are served by either
connecting walkways or major walkway spines. Ramps are provided at parking lots and
streets. There are two off-street walkways that cross over the north -south drainage
channel with bridges. In addition to each street -facing building having a connecting
walkway, the clubhouse is connected to the Conifer Street bus stop with a walkway.
There is one bike rack per building that can hod two bikes for a total of 442 bike parking
spaces.
C. Public Testimony.
Members did not comment specifically about this standard.
d. Hearing Officer.
The Hearing Officer finds that this P.D.P. complies with this standard.
7. Section 3.2.2(K)(1) - Required Number of Off-street Parking Spaces.
10
b. Staff Analysis.
Staff noted that there are no rows of parking that exceed 15 spaces. Parking lots are
compartmentalized and distributed so that no one lot exceeds 100 spaces. The
landscaped islands comply with the six percent minimum landscape requirement.
C. Public Testimony.
Members of the public were concerned with the additional residences and parking.
d. Hearing Officer.
The Hearing Office finds that the P.D.P. complies with this standard.
4. Section 3.2.1(F) - Tree Protection and Replacement.
a. General Standard.
Existing significant trees within the Limits of Development and within natural areas that
buffer zones shall be preserved to the extent reasonably feasible and may help satisfy
the landscaping requirements of this Section as set forth therein. Such trees shall be
considered "protected" trees within the meaning of this Section, subject to the
exceptions contained in subsection (2) below. Streets, buildings and lot layouts shall be
designed to minimize the disturbance to significant existing tees. All required
landscape plans shall accurately identify the locations, species, size and condition of all
significant trees, each labeled showing the applicant's intent to either remove,
transplant or protect.
b. Staff Analysis.
Staff notes that the construction of the stormwater detention pond will necessitate the
removal of existing trees. (Siberian Elms, Cotton -bearing Cottonwoods, Russian
Olives, and Female Boxelders are considered nuisance trees and require no mitigation.
A tree mitigation plan has been reviewed and accepted by the City Forester at the level
that complies with the P.D.P. stage. Approximately 196 trees will be up -sized from the
required minimum of two inches to three inches in caliper.
c. , Public Testimony.
Some members of the public were concerned about the loss of trees and habitats.
d. Hearing Officer.
The Hearing Officer finds that the P.D.P complies with this standard. The City Forester
has reviewed and accepted the tree mitigation plan.
5. Section 3.2.2 - Access, Circulation and Parking - Vehicles.
a. Off -Street Parking Spaces.
Parking and circulation systems within each development are required to accommodate
L9
the project.
C. Public Testimony.
The public testimony did not focus on this standard.
d. Hearing Officer.
The Hearing Officer finds that the landscaping complies with the standards.
2. Section 3.2.1(E)(4) - Parking Lot Perimeter Landscaping.
a. Protection and Replacement Requirements.
Parking lot perimeter landscaping (in the minimum setback areas required by section
3.2.2(J) (Access, Circulation and Parking) shall meet the following minimum standards:
(a) trees shall be provided at a ratio of one(1) tree per twenty-
five (25) lineal feet along a public street and one (1) tree per
forty (40) lineal feet along a side lot line parking setback
area.
(b) Screening. Parking lots with six (6) or more spaces shall be
screened from abutting uses and from the street.
b. Staff Analysis.
Staff explained that the project has been specifically designed to place the parking lots
internal to the project so the dwellings face the public streets. As a result, the only
perimeter parking is along the west property line in five small parking lots. These lots
are landscaped along the western edge.
C. Public Testimony.
Members of the public were primarily concerned about the uses and traffic. They did
not comment on this standard.
d. Hearing Officer.
The Hearing Officer finds that the P.D.P. meets this standard.
3. Section 3.2.1.(E)(5) - Parking Lot Interior Landscaping.
a. General Standard.
Six (6) percent of the interior space of all parking lots with less than one hundred (100)
spaces, and ten (10) percent of the interior space of all parking lots with one (100)
spaces or more shall be landscape areas. All parking lot islands, connection walkways
through parking lots and driveways through or to parking lots shall be landscaped
according to the standards in subsections (a) through (f).
n
The public did not object to the building heights.
d. Hearing Officer.
The Hearing Officer finds that the proposed two story buildings comply with the
standard.
4. Section 4.19(E) - Development Standards.
a. Standard.
This standard requires that all development in the CCN Community Commercial District
shall also comply with the standards contained in the Standards and Guidelines for the
North College Avenue Corridor as adopted by the City, to the extent that such
standards and guidelines apply to the property to be developed.
b. Staff Analysis.
Staff noted that most of the standards and guidelines from the original 1994 North
College Corridor Plan have been incorporated into the Land Use Code. The remaining
standards are primarily geared toward addressing the issues of non-residential
redevelopment along North College Avenue. There are no applicable standards that
relate to a residential project with no property frontage along North College Avenue.
C. Public Testimony.
Some members of the public testified that they believed this location was too distant
from the CSU campus. They also objected to the increased density.
d. Hearing Officer.
The Hearing Officer finds that the P.D.P. complies with the standard.
ARTICLE 3 - GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Section 3.2.1 - Landscaping and Tree Protection.
a. Tree Planting Standards.
All developments are required to establish groves and belts of trees along all city
streets, in and around parking lots and in all landscape areas that are located within fifty
(50) feet of any building or structure in order to establish at least a partial urban tree
canopy.
b. Staff Analysis.
Staff noted that street trees are provided in the parkway along all five public streets.
The five major walkway spines are landscaped to frame the walkways. The stormwater
detention pond in the southeast comer is landscaped. Foundation shrubs are included
for each building. In general, this is a large-scale project with a significant amount of
public improvements. The proposed landscaping is commensurate with the scope of
7
C. Public Testimony.
The concerns expressed by the public concerned the amount of housing and the "
suitability of these dwellings for student housing. Some people stated that they
believed this location was too far from Colorado State University ("CSU") to be utilized
by students.
d. Hearing Officer.
The proposed residential uses are appropriate in this area. The distance to CSU is
within three miles. The Hearing Officer notes that the Land Use Code does not
distinguish between types of occupants (student or otherwise).
2. Section 4.19(D)(1) - Land Us Standards.
a. Minimum Density Standard.
This standard requires that single family, two-family and multi -family housing have a
minimum density of five (5) dwellings units per acre calculated on a gross residential
acreage basis for any development project. Single family housing shall be limited to a
maximum of forty (40) percent of the geographically distinct district area.
b. Staff Analysis.
Staff found that the P.D.P contains 221 dwelling units on 31 acres for a gross density of
7.1 dwelling units per gross acre. Under Section 3.8.18, the land that is allowed to be
subtracted from the gross acreage is the land dedicated for new Vine Drive since it is
classified as an arterial street. Approximately one acre will be so dedicated resulting in
a net density of 7.6 dwelling units per acre.
C. Public Testimony.
The public objected to the high number of residential dwellings and accompanying
traffic in this area.
d. Hearing Officer.
The Hearing Officer finds that the P.D.P complies the minimum density standard with
7.1 dwelling units per acre.
3. Section 4.19(D)(2) - Land Use Standards - Maximum Height.
a. Standard.
The maximum building height shall be five (5) stories.
b. Staff Analysis.
Staff determined that all buildings will be two stories.
C. Public Testimony.
(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 Fort Collins:
Ted Shepard, Planning
Ward Stanford, Traffic Department
Lindsey Ex, Environmental Planner
From the applicant:
Lucia Liley, Esq.
Deanne Frederickson, The Fredrickson Group
Charlie Vatterott, Aspen Heights
Joe Delich, Delich Associates.
Larry Owen, PE, Owen Consulting Group
From the public:
Members from the public testified. A copy of the sign -in sheet is attached hereto.
FINDINGS
ARTICLE FOUR - CCN ZONE DISTRICT STANDARDS
Section 4.19(13)(2)(a) - Permitted Use.
a. Permitted Use Standard.
This standard lists the permitted uses in the CCN District subject to administrative
review. Residential uses including single family, two-family, single family attached
multi -family dwellings, group homes, extra occupancy rental house and mixed use
dwellings are permitted per subsection (a).
b. Staff Analysis.
The three proposed uses, single family detached, two-family and multi -family dwellings
are proposed. In addition, Aspen Heights proposes to convert all 81 single family
detached dwellings into Extra Occupancy Rental Houses with a mix of four and five
bedroom units. The conversion to Extra Occupancy houses must be processed as
a Basic Development Review after the issuance of a certificate of occupancy.
5
nature of the area and its existing housing stock." (Page 19)
• "Goal STN 1. More Complete Street Network. "Evolve a more complete
pattern of streets, driveways and alleyways forming interconnected blocks
of development, services by public access and utilities, behind highway
frontage."
• "Goal LU 1. Synergy. Zoning. City actions URA and business
association efforts will assist "high multiplier" uses that bring people and
economic activity, and add synergy with surrounding properties.
Examples include 1) dwellings, 2) stable living -wage jobs, 3) retail sales
and 4) attractions." (Page 48)
• "Enhanced Travel Corridor. City Plan designates an "Enhanced Travel
Corridor" along Conifer Street and southward from Conifer along North
College Avenue connecting to Downtown and the Mason Transportation
Corridor. Along Conifer, the Enhanced Travel Corridor continues
eastward to ultimately connect with future development in the Mountain
View Area. An Enhanced Travel Corridor is envisioned to provide a
primary, multi -modal transportation corridor with high -frequency transit in
future phases of the City's transit system. (Pages 53-54)
Aspen Heights P.D.P. fulfills the vision of the North College corridor Plan by being
within the Targeted Redevelopment Area and by adding housing units to the benefit of
the trade area. With the extensions of Redwood Street, Blue Spruce Drive and Lupine
Drive as public streets, Aspen Heights contribute to building a more complete street
network. The inclusion of housing along Conifer Street will promote the viability of its
designation as an Enhanced Travel Corridor.
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING:
Evidence presented to the Hearing Officer established that the hearing was properly
posted, legal notices mailed and notice published.
PUBLIC HEARING:
The Hearing Officer opened the hearing at approximately 6:05 P.M. on May 21, 2012 in
the City Council Chambers, 300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado.
HEARING TESTIMONY, WRITTEN COMMENTS AND OTHER EVIDENCE:
The Hearing Officer accepted the following evidence from the hearing: (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 members of the public were present and
submitted a variety of documents. The Land Use Code, the City's Comprehensive Plan
lI
Anheuser Busch Brewery in the mid -eighties allowed many of the parcels to be
annexed into the City over time.
There are several residential subdivisions that developed as individual projects over the
past 30 years and are served by a neighborhood park (Greenbriar). Despite being in
such close proximity to Downtown and North College Avenue, the area has a
remarkable lack of public improvements and maintains a look and feel that are unique.
As the City continues to fill in the Growth Management area, northeast Fort Collins will
likely experience significant development pressure as growth finds its way to large
vacant parcels of land.
The Master Street Plan calls for existing East Vine Drive to be downgraded to a local
street and replaced by a new, realigned arterial that would be located parallel and
approximately 1,500 feet to the north. This new Vine Drive would begin on North
College Avenue and align with the existing Pinion Street intersection and extend east to
Lemay Avenue (one mile east). The southern property line of Aspen Heights adjoins
the future right-of-way for new Vine Drive. Currently, there is no capital project funding
for construction of this new roadway but segments will be dedicated and constructed as
development occurs.
3. North College Corridor Sub -area Plan
The original North College Corridor Sub -area Plan ("NCCP") was adopted in 1994 and
formed the basis of the subject site's Community Commercial Neighborhood zone
district. The NCCP was updated in 2007 to reflect the Dry Creek floodplain
improvements and the access control efforts made jointly by the City and CDOT. The
zoning of the site remains consistent across both plans. Highlights of the NCCP, as it
relates to Aspen Heights are summarized as follows:
"The NCCP identifies the North College corridor among "Targeted
Redevelopment Areas" where general agreement exists that infill and
redevelopment are beneficial; increase economic activity is desired; and it
is appropriate to facility urban evolution." (Page 13)
"Housing. The economic strength of businesses in the corridor is largely
dependent upon customers in the trade area. A market analysis indicates
a need for building up the customer base within the trade area and the
corridor itself." (Page 19)
Market analysis encourages a mix of housing, which in this case refers to
a need to encourage some moderate and higher income housing in
addition to lower income housing, which is naturally expected given the
3
SUMMARY OF HEARING OFFICER DECISION: APPROVAL SUBJECT TO ONE
CONDITION
BACKGROUND:
SURROUNDING ZONING AND LAND USES
Direction
Zone
Land Use
N
CCN
Counseling and Treatment Center, Electrical Sub-
station and single family
S
CCN
Existing single family (Old Town North)
E
RL
Existing single family (Redwood Village)
LMN
Vacant
W
CCN
Vacant
2. CONTEXT OF THE SURROUNDING AREA
Historically, this area has been under -developed when compared to other parts of the
City of Fort Collins. For decades, much of the area was designated by F.E.M.A as
within the 100-year floodplain of Dry Creek (a tributary to the Poudre River to the north
and east). Over the past ten years, however, the City has installed upstream and
downstream stormwater drainage improvements and most, but not all, of the land has
now been removed from the F.E.M.A. floodplain maps. As a result, the general area is
now experiencing redevelopment along North College Avenue (North College
Marketplace - King Soopers) and new development activity on,vacant land (Old Town
North Subdivision).
The northeast quadrant of the City is also traversed by the Poudre River and the
Burlington Northern Railroad tracks and switching yard. These features create access
challenges and have, over the long run, contributed to the isolation of the area.
Further, the area was the site of the original Great Western Sugar Beet Factory located
along East Vine Drive. This large, heavy industrial complex was active from its
founding in 1900 to 1960's. The works were then converted to a manufactured home
factory.
The area quickly blends into unincorporated Larimer County and large -lot subdivisions
and small farms and pastures on small acreage. The flagpole annexation for the
2
CITY OF FORT COLLINS
ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION
ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING DATE: May 21, 2012
PROJECT NAME: Aspen Heights.
CASE NUMBER: P.D.P. 110018
APPLICANT: Breckenridge Land Acquisition
c/o Deanne Frederickson
The Frederickson Group
7711 Windsong Road
Windsor, CO 80550
OWNER: First Bank
1707 Main Street
Longmont, CO 80501
HEARING OFFICER: Richard V. Lopez
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
This is a request for 221 dwellings on 31 acres located south of Conifer Street, west of
Redwood Street and north of Old Town North subdivision. The dwellings and number
of bedrooms would be divided in the following manner:
81 Single Family detached - (4-5 bedrooms);
62 Two Family (duplexes) (2-3 bedrooms);
78 Multi -Family (row houses, 3-6 units per building) (2-3 bedrooms).
There would be a total of 712 bedrooms, each leased individually. All dwellings would
be two stories. A total of 786 off-street parking spaces would be provided. The project
includes a clubhouse, pool; outdoor sport court and leasing office.
Blue Spruce Drive and Lupine Drive are two public streets that would be extended to
serve the site. Redwood Street would be extended south to connect with the existing
Redwood Street resulting in a complete roadway between existing East Vine Drive and
Conifer Street. A segment of the new, realigned Vine Drive would be constructed along
the project's southern property line but will not extend to North College Avenue.
Planning, Development & Transportation Services
,�t� Collins
of
June 5, 2012
Community Development & Neighborhood Services
281 North College Avenue
P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522.0580
970.416.2740
970.224.6134- fax
fcgov.com
Attendee of the Aspen Heights Project Development Plan, # 110018 Public Hearing,
Please find attached to this letter a copy of the Type I Administrative Hearing Findings,
Conclusions and Decision for the Project Hearing of the Aspen Heights Project
Development Plan, # 110018.
Pursuant to Section 2.2.7(D) of the Fort Collins Land Use Code, this Decision has been
mailed to the applicant and any person who attended and/or provided testimony at the
public hearing held on May 21, 2012.
This final decision of the Administrative Hearing Officer may be appealed to the City
Council, in accordance with Chapter 2, Article ll, Division 3 of the City Code, within 14
calendar days of the date of final action June 5, 2012 by the Hearing Officer. The
deadline to file an appeal is 5:00 p.m. on June 19, 2012. Guidelines explaining the
appeal process, including the Code provisions previously referenced, can be found
online at fcqov.com/cityclerk/appeals.php, or may be obtained in the City Clerk's Office
at 300 LaPorte Avenue.
If you have any questions about the attached Decision or the appeal process, please
contact me at 970-221-6343.
Sincerely,
T
Ted Shepard
Chief Planner