Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutREGENCY LAKEVIEW - PDP & APU - PDP120013 - CORRESPONDENCE - CORRESPONDENCE-HEARING (23)November 8, 2012 -7- ITEM 3 ATTACHMENTS 1. City Clerk's Public Notice of Appeal Hearing and Notice of Site Visit 2. Notice of Appeal 3. Staff Report Provided to the Planning and Zoning Board, with attachments 4. Materials submitted by Citizens Prior to the Planning and Zoning Board Hearing 5. Materials submitted by Applicant at the Planning and Zoning Board Hearing 6. Materials submitted by Citizens at the Planning and Zoning Board Hearing 7. Verbatim Transcript of Planning and Zoning Board Hearing 8. Site Visit Summary, September 24, 2012 9. Staff Powerpoint presentation to Council November 8, 2012 -6- ITEM 3 With regard to traffic patterns across the existing church parking lot, the fundamental design objective is to minimize traffic from the apartments from traveling along the length of the southern property line which is separated from the backyards of the existing houses by a six foot high solid privacy fence. Residents along this shared property line indicated at the neighborhood meetings a preference for this traffic to be directed away from their back yards. In response, the site plan was revised such that Regency Lakeview traffic heading west to Lemay Avenue would be directed as far to the north as possible in order to prioritize the north access (which aligns with Scotch Pines shopping center). Consequently westbound drivers will traverse the parking lot at the north edge of the parking lot away from the houses. While it may be possible for these drivers to decide to exit at the southern driveway (which aligns with Strachan Drive on the west side of Lemay Avenue), instead of the north driveway (which aligns with the shopping center drive), for the most part, this traverse is north of the existing houses. Diverting this traffic pattern thus accomplishes the essence of the design intent which is to minimize the impact along the southern property line. Regarding the church south access, and traffic delay, the City's traffic engineer, Ward Stanford, states on page 53, lines 12 — 20: "The development has done efforts to try and move the traffic to the north access, which we applaud. And, the south access is expected much lower quantities of traffic. We also don't have an existing accident history therefor that characteristic. So, I'm assuming that the motorists are pretty cognitive of it, and will continue to be able to drive adequately to use it appropriately. At this point, we don't have a concern with that characteristic. Will it possibly cause a little delay to somebody exiting when they're trying to consider what the other person may be doing? Yes, they certainly can. Is it going to be a common, frequent activity? We don't believe so. If it does become something of an accident quantity, it's also an aspect that we have a responsibility to address, and at that time, that we will do so." Regarding the church north access, the City's traffic engineer, Ward Stanford, states on page 54, lines 5 — 12: "Let's see, in ...the north access to the church on Lemay, or ... which will be their access also (Regency Lakeview), we don't see it as being an exit or entrance problem, basically, just to the geometric layout, the left turns don't conflict with each other. And, we do expect ... it was at my direction, the basically, the distribution of traffic. And, we expect that most of the traffic that's going towards Lemay from the side (site), or using Lemay from the side (site), will either be going north, towards the higher business area, or to the west, to the also higher business area. And, so, with that, the right turn out there is the higher movement anyway than the left turn." (Parentheticals added for clarity.) G. The Board Failed To Conduct a Fair Hearing By Exceeding Its Authority and Ignoring Its Previously Established Rules of Procedure This assertion relates to the motion to approve the PDP. The appellants contend that the Planning and Zoning Board failed to conduct a fair hearing primarily because they failed to consider that the level of service for pedestrians falls below the required minimum. This is the same assertion as in the previous section and is repeated but under a different ground for appeal. As stated in the preceding section: With regard to the existing attached sidewalks on Drake Road and Lemay Avenue, the following testimony was provided to the Board by the applicant's traffic engineering consultant (transcript page 48, lines 1 — 5): "In the traffic study, we talked about the fact that under the pedestrian level of service criteria, that some criteria could not be met. On site, all of the criteria would be met, but off site, since this is an older area of Fort Collins, standard streets and sidewalks and so on were built under previous standards, not the Larimer County Urban Street Standards. The fact of the matter is you can't meet them." The Board had no follow-up discussion regarding this matter. November 8. 2012 -5- ITEM 3 project would be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. For example, the project is designed with a specific objective to buffer the existing neighborhood to the east with landscaping, building setbacks, one-story garages, architectural detail and varying building heights. To the south, buffering is achieved by virtue of open space gained by the stormwater detention pond, approximately two acres in size, which would be upgraded to a pocket park. Finally, the traffic impact on surrounding streets was evaluated and determined to comply with the adopted level of service standards. The Board Failed To Conduct a Fair Hearing By Considering Evidence Relevant To Its Findings Which Was Substantially False Or Grossly Misleading — Section 3.6.4. Land Use Code Section 3.6.4 reads as follows: "All development plans shall 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 11 of the Multi - modal Transportation Manual will not be applied for the purposes of this Section." This assertion relates to the motion to approve the PDP. The appellants assert that the pedestrian level of service cannot be achieved because there are no medians in either arterial street which would act as pedestrian refuge islands. Further, the assertion continues that, as stated by the applicant's traffic engineering consultant, since the existing sidewalks along both arterials would not be deconstructed and then reconstructed to feature detached sidewalks separated by parkways, the pedestrian level of service cannot be achieved. It is asserted that new medians and sidewalks can indeed be installed as there appears to be sufficient land area in which to retrofit these improvements. In addition, the allegation is that traffic information provided to the board did not properly assess the potential traffic patterns across the existing church parking lot in order to gain access to Lemay Avenue. Evidence was presented to the Board by the applicant's traffic engineering consultant that the north access (which aligns with Scotch Pines shopping center) would be used more frequently than the southern access (which aligns with Strachan Drive) and yet there is no basis for this assumption. Traffic using the using the southern access will impact the neighbors to the south. Finally, the allegation is that the traffic delay analysis of traffic leaving the church or neighborhood onto Lemay Avenue was not properly considered. With regard to the pedestrian level of service, the applicant's traffic engineering consultant addressed the Board. This testimony is on page 48, lines 1 - 11 of the transcript. In addition, on page 54, lines 35 — 38 of the transcript, there was this exchange "Boardmember Kirkpatrick: Just to confirm, where there are no plans to put medians on Lemay are there?" "Mr. Stanford (City of Fort Collins Traffic Engineer): None that I am aware of. I think it would be difficult just to find the room to do it with the current build -out characteristic." With regard to the existing attached sidewalks on Drake Road and Lemay Avenue, the following testimony was provided to the Board by the applicant's traffic engineering consultant (transcript page 48, lines 1 — 5): "In the traffic study, we talked about the fact that under the pedestrian level of service criteria, that some criteria could not be met. On site, all of the criteria would be met, but off site, since this is an older area of Fort Collins, standard streets and sidewalks and so on were built under previous standards, not the Larimer County Urban Street Standards. The fact of the matter is you can't meet them." The Board had no follow-up discussion regarding this matter. November 8, 2012 -4- ITEM 3 The Planning and Zoning Board evaluated this criterion. For example, as noted in the transcript (page 60, lines 7 — 9), Boardmember Carpenter commented: "I guess when I look at this, I ... on the question of whether this is detrimental to the public good, I just cannot see that it is. It's city-wide, it fits City Plan, it is what we wanted to do with City Plan, so I really can't see that it is detrimental to the public good." Also as noted in the transcript (page 59, lines 20 — 28), Boardmember Schmidt commented: "I was on the Board when the church came for the rezone several years ago, and I think at that time, I supported actually, the rezoning. The members of the Board, I'll speak for some of them that aren't here anymore, I think had a concern that if you just rezone, it makes things more unpredictable for the neighborhood, and you could get commercial, you could get different things. And, so, our direction to the church at the time was, we'd like to see a specific project and then the neighbors could weigh in and see how compatible that is. So, I think the church has taken that direction and tried to move forward with something to actually present and use the Addition of a Permitted Use process to do that." E. Failure to Properly Interpret and Apply Relevant Provisions of the Land Use Code Specifically Section 1.3.4(A)(4) and 1.3.4(B). Land Use Code Section 1.3.4(A)(4) reads as follows: "Such use is compatible with the other listed permitted uses in the zone district to which it is added." Land Use Code Section 1.3.4(B) reads as follows: "The Planning and Zoning Board may add a proposed use if the Board specifically finds that such use would be in compliance with the requirements and criteria contained in Section 3.5.1." Section 3.5.1 of the Land Use Code addresses issues related to project compatibility with the surrounding area. It is considered in conjunction with the definition of compatibility which is as follows: "Compatibility shall mean the characteristics of different uses or activities or design which allow them to be located near or adjacent to each other in harmony. Some elements affecting compatibility include height, scale, mass and bulk of structures. Other characteristics include pedestrian or vehicular traffic, circulation, access and parking impacts. Other important characteristics that affect compatibility are landscaping, lighting, noise, odor and architecture. Compatibility does not mean "the same as. "Rather, compatibility refers to the sensitivity of development proposals in maintaining the character of existing development." The appellants assert that Multi -Family Dwellings are not compatible with the existing single family detached homes by virtue of the fact that the two uses are incongruent. Further, the assertion is made that Section 3.5.1 only addresses physical and operational characteristics of buildings and cannot be used in a compatibility analysis. The Board evaluated these two criteria. As noted in the transcript (page 60, lines 2 — 5), Boardmember Schmidt stated: "So I can see that in all the design work that they've put into this project, they've tried to make it as compatible as possible to the neighborhood, and have the least impact on the surrounding neighbors, and I really appreciate that." Also as noted in the transcript (page 60, lines 20 — 22), Boardmember Campana commented: "And, frankly, I think that the design is very good. I think you've done ... as I put on my designer hat, I think you've done about everything you can to transition, buffer, mitigate an existing neighborhood." In summary, the Board evaluated the proposed use not in isolation but in conjunction with the various characteristics as found in the aforementioned definition. Considerable testimony was provided to the Board regarding how the November 8, 2012 -3- ITEM 3 Also as noted in the transcript (page 62, lines 10 — 14), Boardmember Smith commented: "...by and large, the zone districts in the city expect a high degree of mixed -use, every one of them essentially. And so, when I got into the purpose statement of the RL, which, again, it is one sentence. And it talks about predominant single-family residential areas, located throughout the city which were existing at the time of adoption of the Land Use Code. This is clearly a hold -over in order to be able to accommodate some large swaths of land that were going through the process." C. Failure to Properly Interpret and Apply Relevant Provisions of the Land Use Code Specifically Section 1.3.4(A)(3). Land Use Code Section 1.3.4(A)(3) reads as follows: "Such use does not create anymore offensive noise, vibration, dust, heat, smoke, odor, glare or other objectionable influences or any more traffic hazards, traffic generation or attraction, adverse environmental impacts, adverse impacts on public or quasi -public facilities, utilities or services, adverse effect on public health, safety, morals or aesthetics, or other adverse impacts of development, than the amount normally resulting from the other permitted uses listed in the zone district to which it is added." The appellants state that the addition of Multi -Family Dwellings as indicated by the Regency Lakeview PDP would create more adverse impacts than the amount normally resulting from the other permitted uses in the R-L zone. The Planning and Zoning Board evaluated this criterion. For example, as noted in the transcript (page 61, lines 7 — 23), Boardmember Smith commented: "And so, holding that up against what the criteria for Additions of a Permitted Use are, I went through each one. I've looked at each one of them. Clearly, it's not a medical marijuana dispensary, or cultivation facility, not specifically listed as a permitted use. Went through each one of them, and I think what it boiled down to me for was that, ultimately, you get into some of these tangible effects, how a property performs as it's proposed, to whether it's going to, you know... relative to what would be otherwise approved, if it were to be specifically allowed and permitted by the Code. Does it create more offensive noise, vibration, dust, heat, smoke, odor, glare or other objectionable influences, and there's a litany of these, and I think everybody in the room has gone through and seen what these all are. And, then I think about ... as I think the applicant had said that, you know, the waythat this is set up is that you actually invite that analysis of being able to look at the project as proposed, relative to something that were to be just explicitly allowed by the Code, and whether or not it would be excessive as it performs in the neighborhood beyond what is... a project that would just, by right, approved. f could not come up ... I could not be convinced that this project would be creating any more adverse effects than, say, if the church were to go and fully develop out a campus, for instance, that had a lot of different uses, including a school." In summary, the Board found that the request for Multi -Family Dwellings, as proposed on the subject parcel and the accompanying PDP, complies with the applicable criteria related to adverse impacts. The Board found that the project would not create any more offensive or adverse impacts or any other objectionable influences than the amount normally resulting from the other permitted uses listed in the R-L zone. Failure to Properly Interpret and Apply Relevant Provisions of the Land Use Code Specifically Section 1.3.4(B). Land Use Code Section 1.3.4(B) reads as follows: "The Planning and Zoning Board may add a proposed use if the Board specifically finds that such use would not be detrimental to the public good." The appellants assert that by using the Addition of a Permitted Use process is improper because it is in effect a rezoning. November 8, 2012 -2- ITEM 3 2. Did the Planning and Zoning Board fail to conduct a fair hearing in that the Board exceeded its authority or jurisdiction as contained in the Land Use Code or Charter? 3. Did the Planning and Zoning Board fail to conduct a fair hearing in that the Board substantially ignored its previously established rules of procedure? Did the Planning and Zoning Board fail to conduct a fair hearing in that the Board considered evidence relevant to its findings which were substantially false or grossly misleading? ALLEGATIONS ON APPEAL A. Failure to Properly Interpret and Apply Relevant Provisions of the Land Use Code Specifically Section 1.3.4(A)(1). Land Use Code Section 1.3.4(A)(1) reads as follows: "Such use is appropriate in the zone district to which it is added." The appellants assert that Multi -Family Dwellings, as indicated by the Regency Lakeview PDP, are not appropriate within the R-L zone district because the R-L zone is for low density housing, not multi -family housing. The Planning and Zoning Board not only considered the underlying zoning but also evaluated the context of the individual parcel and its relationship to the surrounding area. Given the site's location within this existing urban context, the addition of Multi -Family Dwellings, at this particular location, was considered appropriate. As noted in the transcript (page 59, lines 20 — 23), Boardmember Schmidt commented: "I was on the Board when the church came for the rezone several years ago, and I think at that time, I supported, actually, the rezoning. I thought the higher density housing was appropriate in this area because of the two arterials, the Citys commitment to the infill. " Also as noted in the transcript (page 61, lines 35 — 39), Boardmember Smith commented: "So, with that said, I still looked at this one as being, you've still got to fit the zone district. Is this... is it more appropriate for this to be rezoned or is it going to be acceptable and appropriate to go through the Addition of a Permitted Use process? And, so, looking at it line by line, it does seem that it does fit all the criteria that's laid out to be accepted for an addition of a permitted use." B. Failure to Properly Interpret and Apply Relevant Provisions of the Land Use Code Specifically Section 1.3.4(A)(2). Land Use Code Section 1.3.4(A)(2) reads as follows: "Such use conforms to the basic characteristics of the zone district and the other permitted uses in the zone district to which it is added." The appellants state that adding Multi -Family Dwellings to the R-L zone does not conform to the basic characteristics of the zone and other permitted uses. The Planning and Zoning Board discussed this standard. As noted in the transcript (page 61, lines 40 —42 and page 62, lines 1 — 2) Boardmember Schmidt commented: "I just wanted to say quickly, too, I think I had a concern, too, whether the addition of a permitted use was the right way to go with this, and I think, again, because we're keeping it residential, which goes with the character of the neighborhood. You've got a project that has garages, so I think when people, you know, have cars, these are going to be the kinds of tenants who are going to want to stay and become a part of the neighborhood." DATE: November 8, 2012 k AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY STAFF: Ted Shepard FORT Consideration of an Appeal of the Planning and Zoning Board's July 19, 2012 Decision to Approve Regency Lakeview Addition of a Permitted Use for Multi -family Dwellings at Christ Center Community Church and Project Development Plan. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In April 2012, Regency Residential Partners submitted a request for an Addition of a Permitted Use for Multi -Family Dwellings in the Low Density Residential (R-L) zone district and Project Development Plan for an 11-acre parcel located on the east side of the Christ Center Community Church. The parcel is located at the southeast corner of Drake Road and LemayAvenue. As proposed, the project consists of 175 dwelling units divided among eight buildings plus a clubhouse. On July 19, 2012, the Planning and Zoning Board conducted a public hearing regarding an application for an Addition of a Permitted Use and for approval of the Regency Lakeview PDP. After receiving testimony from the applicant, the public and staff, and after deliberation, the Board voted 4 — 2 to approve the request for an Addition of a Permitted Use for Multi -Family Dwellings, and then voted 5 — 1 to approve the Regency Lakeview Project Development Plan. On August 2, 2012, Andrew Lewis et. al., filed a Notice of Appeal alleging that the Planning and Zoning Board (1) failed to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Land Use Code and (2) failed to conduct a fair hearing. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION The project consists of two components because a request for an Addition of a Permitted Use must be accompanied by either an Overall Development Plan or a Project Development Plan. As mentioned, the project would consist of 175 dwelling units divided among eight buildings plus a clubhouse on 11 acres. There would be a mix of one, two and three -bedroom units for a total of 275 bedrooms. There would be 292 parking spaces divided among attached garages, detached garages and surface parking, and 283 bike spaces. Amenities would include a clubhouse, pool and walkways. There are no four bedroom units. Leases would be by the unit, not the bedroom. The dwelling units are intended to be leased at the market rate and do not include any public subsidy for affordable housing purposes. The applicant has indicated that there is no specific targeting of any one particular demographic group. The existing stormwater detention pond at the south end of the parcel would be enlarged and improved as a two -acre, private pocket park. There would be no new access drives from either Lemay Avenue or Drake Road. The.parcel is presently used as an athletic field as part of the 25-acre Christ Center Community Church campus. ACTION OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD The Board took two actions: Voted 4 — 2 to allow Multi -Family Dwellings in the R-L zone on the subject parcel only and as specifically depicted on the Regency Lakeview PDP. Voted 5 — 1 to approve the Regency Lakeview PDP. THE QUESTIONS COUNCIL NEEDS TO ANSWER Did the Planning and Zoning Board fail to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Land Use Code?