HomeMy WebLinkAboutAIR CARE COLORADO - PDP - 2-10 - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTES�3%30%2010 Pete Wra Correction
_ _- j..___ . Y. w
From:
Ted Shepard
To:
Pete Wray
Date:
3/30/2010 8:30 AM
Subject:
Correction
Just got off the phone with Jim Brandon. He is with Envirotest, not the public.
And, he is from Akron, CO 80720, not Denver.
Administrative Public Hearing Sign -In
Project: Po t(C/LCl O
Meeting Location: N\ `t 11fi1
Date: ,� /2-'7 / I C)
PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY
Name
Address
Phone
Email
_
cam. Sctirc c
/75 rir5`i
ut I.rr,�cr
` 1
517 ' �✓
�`Z
7v -z4 7A
—,r
s ffzaLiAzq
-1s4 u2o
.cam Alk
5U ,,, Z
7y(F -oiz 7
davc
Aso
Vv� O 1L
qO 2�Tzsc l2.3 N. CaIGF Ft35z FC
`fo7, ?9v0
JI MQ
'v✓ m 4,
QR AAJ 0 N
�i i/�/ 7` #'� ! k-- C'!J 71!/
`C dnJ
30 3 �3" SSCS
o72�+^ c• i ccrT d C .� 7 c 7 Y/P/. }7O
S
s
Air Care Colorado Project Development Plan, #2-10 City Of
Administrative Hearing, Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
April6, 2010 Fort Collins
Page 9 of 9 �~�,
C. Specifically, a Request for Modification to Section 3.5.3(B) - Relationship of
Buildings to Streets, Walkways and Parking— is included in the P.D.P. to allow
the building to be placed 64 feet behind the front property line with a drive aisle
located between the building and the public sidewalk.
D. The Request for Modification complies with the applicable criteria of Section
2.8.2(H):
(1.) The P.D.P., as modified would not be detrimental to the public good.
(2.) The P.D.P., as modified, will promote the general purpose of the standard
equally well or better than would a plan that otherwise would comply with
the standard.
(3.) The reason the P.D.P., as modified, is equal to or better than a plan that
would comply is that there is an increased level of safety by physically
separating the inspection lane function from employee and office -
customer parking. In addition, there would be less traffic impact on the
public street by allowing internal circulation between the discharge lanes
and the customer parking area. Finally, the P.D.P. provides an
alternative design that places the pedestrian in a highly visible cross -walk
relative to the volume of the parking lot traffic.
DECISION
Air Care Colorado Project Development Plan, # 2-10 is hereby approved, as modified
pursuant to Section 3.5.3(B) of the City's Land Use Code by the Hearing Officer,
subject to the following condition:
Air Care Colorado Project Development Plan, # 2-10 is approved, as modified
subject to the condition that additional evergreen tree plantings be provided as
screening along the NE planting area adjacent to the inspection staging lot (see
details above).
Dated this 6th day of April, 2010 per authority granted by Sections 1.4.9(E) and 2.1 of the
Land Use Code.
Wray
)r City Planner
Air Care Colorado Project Development Plan, #2-10 City Of
Administrative Hearing, Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
April 6, 2010 Fort Collins
Page 8 of 9 `-
specific evidence was presented to contradict the statements and conclusion of
the staff report concerning compliance with Article 4 or the C District Standards.
Commercial Zone District:
A. Permitted Uses
A vehicle emission testing facility is defined as a vehicle minor repair, servicing
and maintenance and is a permitted use in the Commercial zone, subject to
Administrative Review.
B. Land Use Standard
The building is one story thus below the maximum height of four stories.
C. Development Standard
There is one standard that is applicable:
(2) Site Design.
(a) Pedestrian -oriented outdoor spaces shall be placed next to
activity areas that generate the users (such as street corners,
shops, stores, offices, day care and dwellings). Because
liveliness created by the presence of people is the main key to
the attractiveness of such spaces, to the maximum extent
feasible, the development shall link outdoor spaces to and make
them visible from streets and sidewalks. Sculpture, kiosks or
shelters are encouraged to be prominently placed in outdoor
spaces.
Although the emission testing facility is not a self -serve facility, it is most similar
to a multi -bay automatic carwash. Customers will remain with their cars in each
inspection lane while it is being tested on dynamometer. Staff will conduct the
operation and handle the paperwork on a per -bay basis while the customer waits.
Customers will not be routed to a centralized waiting room. Consequently, there
will not be any activity that generates pedestrian liveliness. For those customers
that fail the test, or otherwise need assistance, they will drive their cars out the
discharge lane and then circulate to the front of the facility and park. Staff in the
office will be equipped to address special circumstances.
SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS
A. The proposed land use, vehicle minor repair, servicing and maintenance, is a
permitted land use in the Commercial zone, subject to administrative review.
B. The P.D.P. complies with the applicable General Development Standards of
Article Three with one exception.
Air Care Colorado Project Development Plan, #2-10 City Of
Administrative Hearing, Findings, Conclusions, and Decision April 6, 2010 Forr+r l Collins
Page 7 of 9 /
inspection lane traffic. It would be safer to keep these functions physically
separated.
Finally, the applicant contends that the alternative design effectively mitigates the
lack of a properly oriented building with a direct connecting walkway by the
provision of break in the front parking row and cross -walk striping across the
drive aisle. This break is highly visible, 17 feet wide and is framed with
landscaping and lighting.
C. Staff Finding — Section 2.8.2(H)
In evaluating the Request for Modification, Staff makes the following findings:
The granting of the Modification would not be detrimental to the public
good.
2. The granting of the Modification will result in a plan that will promote the
general purpose of Section 3.5.3(B) equally well or better than would a
plan which otherwise would comply.
The reason the P.D.P., as modified, is equal to or better than a plan that
would comply is that there is an increased level of safety by physically
separating the inspection lane function from employee and office -
customer parking. In addition, there would be less traffic impact on the
public street by allowing internal circulation between the discharge lanes
and the customer parking area. Finally, the P.D.P. provides an
alternative design that places the pedestrian in a highly visible cross -walk
relative to the volume of the parking lot traffic.
D. Hearing Officer Evaluation of the Request for Modification
The Hearing Officer agrees with the staff findings. The use is auto -
related. The context is a suburban business park, located next to the
interstate highway, developed in Larimer County, with a variety of land
uses. There are no pedestrian trips that would originate in the vicinity.
The use would not be a pedestrian destination. The only pedestrian
destination within the business park is the drive -through restaurant
located approximately 580 feet to the northeast. Staff, therefore, finds
that pedestrian activity would be low.
Operationally, keeping the failed vehicles circulating onsite versus
directing them back onto the public street is efficient and reduces
unnecessary congestion. The separation of inspection lane traffic from
employee and office -customer traffic promotes safety.
5. Compliance with Article 4 and the C Zone District Standards:
The Air Care Colorado P.D.P. complies with all applicable requirements of Article
4 and the C Zone District, including the proposed emissions testing facility. No
Air Care Colorado Project Development Plan, #2-10
Administrative Hearing, Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
April 6, 2010
Page 6 of 9
Fort Collins
The building features a distinct base, middle and top highlighted by accent
columns between the inspection lanes.
K. Section 3.6.4 — Transportation Level of Service Requirements
The P.D.P. adequately provides vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle facilities
necessary to maintain the adopted levels of service standards. The key
improvement is that the project will construct a new sidewalk along the north side
of the Southeast Frontage Road. The Transportation Impact Study concludes
that the estimated traffic impacts can be accommodated by the existing public
improvements.
4. Request for Modification of Section 3.5.3(13):
A. Standard at Issue:
Section 3.5.3(B) requires the following:
(B) Relationship of Buildings to Streets, Walkways and Parking.
(1) Orientation to a Connecting Walkway. At least one (1) main entrance
of any commercial or mixed -use building shall face and open directly
onto a connecting walkway with pedestrian frontage.
(2) Orientation to Build -to Lines for Streetfront Buildings. Build -to lines
based on a consistent relationship of buildings to the street sidewalk shall
be established by development projects for new buildings in order to
form visually continuous, pedestrian -oriented streetfronts with no vehicle
use area between building faces and the street.
(b) Buildings shall be located no more than fifteen (15) feet from
the right-of-way of an adjoining street if the street is smaller than
a full arterial or has on -street parking.
The building is placed 64 feet behind the front property line and there is a parking
lot drive aisle located between the building the public sidewalk.
B. Applicant's Justification
The applicant contends that circumnavigation of the building for vehicles is
required so that vehicles that fail the emission test can exit the inspection lane,
and then drive to a parking spot in front of the building without having to leave the
site, enter the public street and then re-enter the site. With a parking lot drive
located between the office and the street, drivers can maneuver, park and enter
the office building to consult with the appropriate officials in a convenient manner.
The applicant further contends that compliance would re -organize the site plan
such that the office and employee and customer parking would be placed on the
north side of the site. This orientation would cause a commingling with
Air Care Colorado Project Development Plan, #2-10 City Of
Administrative Hearing, Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
April 6, 2010 Fort Collins
Page 5 of 9
additional screening, similar to what is shown along the SW perimeter in
size and quantity (approximately 200 feet), as a condition of approval.
E. Section 3.2.2(B) — Access Circulation and Parking and Section
3.2.2(C)(5) - Walkways
As mentioned, sole access is gained by the Southeast Frontage Road. The
P.D.P. includes a circulation pattern designed to accommodate the inspection
procedure with each lane having an individual entrance and exit. There is a
walkway that links the building to the new public sidewalk being constructed by
this P.D.P. on the Frontage Road.
F. Section 3.2.2(K) - Parking
As a vehicle servicing and maintenance facility, there is an allowable maximum
of five spaces per 1,000 square feet of floor area, or 83 spaces. The P.D.P.
provides 37 spaces thus complying with the standard.
G. Section 3.2.4 — Site Lighting
Parking lot lighting will feature down -directional and sharp cut-off fixtures. There
are no foot-candles that exceed the maximum allowable. In particular, lighting
levels are reduced along the western edge of the project which benefits from 1-25
illumination.
H. Section 3.5.1(8)(C)(E)(F) — Building Project and Compatibility
This standard is designed to ensure compatibility of new buildings with the
surrounding context. In this case, there are a variety of buildings in the
immediate vicinity including hotel, motorcycle dealership and a manufacturing
distribution facility. Since all three of these uses are different, there is no
established architectural character. Further, the proposed auto -related use is
significantly dissimilar such that achieving compatibility is impractical.
Absent any established character, the standard requires that new buildings shall
set an enhanced standard of quality for future projects or redevelopment in the
area. The building will feature a main field of medium -colored, split -face concrete
block. The base will be a dark -colored, split -face block. There will be a
horizontal reveal featuring a light-colored, split -face block. The sloped, metal
roof will be charcoal gray. Horizontal relief is provided by four columns located
between the inspection bays, on both the north and south elevations.
Section 3.5.3(8)(2)(a) — Relationship of Buildings to Streets, Walkways
and Parking — Build -to Lines
The building does not comply with this standard. The P.D.P. includes a Request
for Modification which is discussed in the following section.
J. Section 3.5.3(D)(1— 6) — Character and Image
Air Care Colorado Project Development Plan, #2-10 City Of
Administrative Hearing, Findings, Conclusions, and Decision F } CollinsI .
Page 4 of �'~`Orl
and public hearing. The LUC does not require that a neighborhood meeting be
held for development proposals that are not subject to a Planning and Zoning
Board (Type 2) review. Therefore, a City -sponsored and facilitated neighborhood
information meeting was not held for the Air Care Colorado proposal.
3. Compliance with Article 3 of the Land Use Code — General
Development Standards
Staff finds the Air Care Colorado P.D.P. proposal complies with all applicable
requirements of Article 3, including the Request for Modification of 3.5.3. (B),
relationship of Buildings to Streets, Walkways, and Parking, which is described
below.
During the Hearing, the Hearing Officer expressed a concern that the Landscape
Plan did not comply with Article 3.2.1. (E)(4)(b) Parking Lot Perimeter
Landscaping Screening, and 3.2.1.(E) (6), Screening of visually intrusive site
elements such as service areas.
A. Section 3.2.1(C)(D) — Landscaping and Tree Protection
The P.D.P. provides full tree stocking around the building where there are no
conflicts with paved areas. Street trees are provided along the Southeast
Frontage Road. Foundation shrubs are provided around the building with the
logical exception of the entrance and exit lanes
B. Section 3.2.1(E)(4)(b) — Parking Lot Perimeter Landscaping
The east parking lot perimeter is landscaped along both parking bays. The south
parking faces a drainage swale, the detached sidewalk and parkway. The
discharge lanes are screened by a row of trees along the west property line.
The Hearing Officer finds that the Proposed Landscape Plan needs to add
additional evergreen tree planting along the NE service staging area
perimeter landscaping, to provide additional screening, similar to what is
shown along the SW perimeter in size and quantity (approximately 200
feet), as a condition of approval.
C. Section 3.2.1(E)(5) — Parking Lot Interior Landscaping
The project has 37 parking spaces which require a minimum of 6% interior
landscaping in the form of islands. The parking lot is landscaped in a manner
that exceeds the required minimum.
D. Section 3.2.1(E)(6) — Screening
As stated above in Section 3.2.1. (E)(4)(b), the Hearing Officer finds that the
Proposed Landscape Plan needs to add additional evergreen tree planting
along the NE service staging, perimeter landscaping area, to provide
Air Care Colorado Project Development Plan, #2-10 City Of
Administrative Hearing, Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
April 6, 2010 Fort Collins
Page 3 of 9 `-
Written Comments:
None
FACTS AND FINDINGS
The Applicant has submitted an application for a Project Development Plan 2-10. Staff
finds that the P.D.P. complies with the Commercial zone district standards of Article Four
and the General Development standards Article Three. The Hearing Officer, as noted at
the Hearing, has identified one exception to complying with Article Three Standards, and
includes a condition of approval on the P.D.P, as noted in Section 3 below.
The P.D.P. includes a Modification of Standard to Section 3.5.3(B) of the City's Land
Use Code in order to accommodate the proposed building orientation with a drive aisle
located between the building and the public sidewalk along the Southeast Frontage
Road. Staff finds that the Modification complies with the applicable criteria of Section
2.8.2(H).
COMMENTS:
1. Compatibility with Surrounding Uses:
The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows:
N: C; 1-25 Exit Ramp
S: C; Motorcycle Dealership and Manufacturing Distribution Facility
E: Larimer County — C, Commercial — Existing Hotel
W: C; Vacant Parcel and Interstate 25
The property is part of Interchange Business Pak which was platted and
developed in Larimer County and annexed in 2005. A replat of Lots 15 and 16 is
being considered independent of this P.D.P.
2. Compliance with Article 2 of the Land Use Code - Administration:
This Major Amendment complies with the applicable requirements of the LUC,
specifically the procedural requirements located in Division 2.1 - General
Procedural Requirements, Division 2.2 - Common Development Review
Procedures for Development Applications, and Section 2.4 - Project
Development Plan in Article 2 - Administration.
The proposed P.D.P. to develop a vehicle emission testing facility on Lots 16 and a
portion of Lot 15 of the Interchange Business Park by Air Care Colorado is a permitted
use in the C — Commercial District, subject to an administrative (Type 1) review
Air Care Colorado Project Development Plan, #2-10 City Of
Administrative Hearing, Findings, Conclusions, and Decision April 6, 2010 Forr}r ` Collins
Page 2 of 9 /
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.
The Hearing Officer, presiding pursuant to the Fort Collins Land Use Code, opened the
hearing at approximately 5:15 p.m. on March 29, 2010 in 281 North College Avenue
NSVenti Conference Room, 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:
Ted Shepard, Chief Planner
Courtney Rippy, Planning Tech
Andrew Carney, Civil engineer I
From the Applicant:
Rob Thorsheim
Cary Schreiner
Brian Ojala
Brian Coulter
Rodney Johnson
Gary Kaufman
David Moreau
Jim Mokler
From the Public:
1294 Xenon St. Golden, CO 80401
5175 Marshall St. Arvada, CO 80002
12365 Huron St. Westminster, CO 80234
5175 Marshall St. Arvada, CO 80002
5175 Marshall St. Arvada, CO 80002
4200 Chem Creek Dr. Denver, CO 80206
2450 W. 2" Ave. Denver, CO
123 N. College Ave. Fort Collins, CO 80524
Jim Brandon 678 W. 11th St. Denver, CO 80204
Air Care Colorado Project Development Plan, #2-10
Administrative Hearing, Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
April 6, 2010
Page 1 of 9
City of
/11 Fort Collins
CITY OF FORT COLLINS
ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER
TYPE I ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION
ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING DATE:
PROJECT NAME:
CASE NUMBER:
APPLICANT:
OWNER:
HEARING OFFICER:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
March 29, 2010
Air Care Colorado Project
Development Plan
#2-10
Cary Schreiner
Envirotest Systems
5175 Marshall Street
Arvada, CO 80002
Mr. Jim Mokler
123 North College Avenue
Fort Collins, CO 80524
Pete Wray
Senior City Planner
This is a request to develop a vehicle emission testing facility on Lots 16 and a portion of
Lot 15 of the Interchange Business Park by Air Care Colorado Project Development
Plan. In addition to Air Care Colorado, two state agencies would be housed onsite —
The Department of Public Health and the Environment and the Department of Revenue.
The P.D.P. includes a Request for Modification to Section 3.5.3(B) regarding the build -to
line.
The site is 3.15 acres in size and located at the southeast quadrant of 1-25 and the
Southeast Frontage Road, west of the existing hotel. The parcel is zoned C,
Commercial.
6��'L_diedl:�'t�I�:I�T:TI�L�Z�7y3[�3�iTX�9L�I:i
ZONING DISTRICT: The parcel is zoned C, Commercial.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Request for
Modification to Section 3.5.3(B) and approval of Air
Care Colorado P.D.P., #2-10.
Planning, Development & Transportation Services
, F�`o�rt` Collins
of
April 6, 2010
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 Air Care Colorado Project Development Plan, # 2-10, 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 Attendee of the Air Care Colorado
Project Development Plan, # 2-10.
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 provided testimony at the public hearing.
This final decision of the Administrative Hearing Officer may be appealed to the City
Council, in accordance with Chapter 2, Article II, Division 3 of the City Code, within 14
calendar days of the date of final action April 7, 2010 by the Hearing Officer. The
deadline to file an appeal is 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday, April 21, 2010. Guidelines
explaining the appeal process, including the Code provisions previously referenced, can
be found online at fcgov.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 221-6754.
S'ncerely,
Pet Wray
Senior City Planner