Loading...
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