HomeMy WebLinkAboutASPEN DENTAL - PDP - 1-09 - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTESAdministrative Public Hearing Sign -In
1
PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY
Name
ddr s
Phone
Email
3 ! f (JO 7 p,2 Z 57. l<G SC z1
70- 15 - l2 Zv
Aspen Dental Care, PDP, #01-09
Administrative Hearing
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
April 28, 2009 Page 6 of 6
The Applicant shall submit a revised landscaping plan showing such changes for the review, and
subject to the approval, of the Current Planning Department in conjunction with the Final Plan.
Dated this 4th day of May 2009, per authority granted by S ctions 1.4.9(E) and 2.1 of the Land
Use Code.
Steven J. Dush, AICP
Director of Current Planning
Aspen Dental Care, PDP, #01-09
Administrative Hearing
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
April 28, 2009 Page 5 of 6
Section 3.5.1 of the LUC requires that new developments be compatible with the
established character of the area. Pursuant to this section, the proposed buildings will be
similar in mass, bulk and scale with single family and multi -family buildings in the
immediate area.
D. Section 3.5.3 [B] — Relationship of Buildings to Streets, Walkways and Parking
The Plan complies with the build -to setback of being greater than 10 feet and less than
25 feet from an arterial streets. The site design also includes a direct pedestrian
connection.
E.Section 3.6.4 — Transportation Level of Service
Based on the Applicant's Transportation Impact Study (TIS) nearby intersections will not
be impacted in any significant manner by the traffic generated by the Project and that the
resulting increase in traffic will fall well within the adopted Level of Service (LOS)
standards for all modes of transportation.
There was no evidence introduced at the hearing to contradict the Staff Report; therefore, the
Hearing Officer finds that the Project Development Plan is in conformance with the applicable
requirements found in Article 3 of the Land Use Code except the Parking Lot Perimeter
Landscaping in Section 3.2.1(E)(4).
SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS
A. The Aspen Dental Care Project Development Plan is subject to administrative review and
the requirements of the Land Use Code (LUC).
B. The Aspen Dental Care Project Development Plan satisfies the development standards of
the LMN zoning district.
C. The Aspen Dental Care Project Development Plan complies with all applicable General
Development Standards contained in Article 3 of the Land Use Code, except for Section
3.2.1(E)(4) where a condition of approval has been added in order to satisfy this standard.
DECISION
The Aspen Dental Care Project Development Plan, #01-09 is hereby approved by the Hearing
Officer subject to the following condition:
The Applicant shall add 3 trees along the east side of the property and spaced so as to not
conflict with the necessary stormwater improvements necessary for the proposed development.
Aspen Dental Care, PDP, #01-09
Administrative Hearing
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
April 28, 2009 Page 4 of 6
and with potential neighborhood access to Stoney Creek Drive through the existing
neighborhood center to the south, there existed continued potential for non-residential land uses.
On March 15, 2001 the Planning & Zoning Board, based on Staff recommendation, forwarded a
recommendation to City Council that the Speights PUD be rezoned to LMN from RL. Staff and
the Board agreed that the 1997 City Plan rezoning to RL overlooked the fact that Lot 6 contained
an existing animal hospital and Lot 7 remained a vacant lot with potential for development as
part of a neighborhood center. Staffs position was that this was a simple oversight. Had the facts
been known at the time, the property would have been rezoned to LMN, not RL. The action,
therefore, represented a corrective measure. City Council approved the rezoning to LMN on May
15, 2001.
2. Compliance with Article 4 and the LMN Zoning District Standards:
The Project complies with the applicable standards found under Article Four of the Land
Use Code. The applicant's request complies with the following standards:
Section 4.4(D) — Land Use Standards
The Project Development Plan complies with all applicable requirements of Article 4 and
the LMN zone district. The Staff Report summarizes the PDP's compliance with these
standards and no specific evidence was presented to contradict or otherwise refute the
compliance with Article 4 or the LMN District Standards.
3. Compliance with Article 3 of the Land Use Code — General Development Standards
A. Section 3.2.1(E)(4) - Parking Lot Perimeter Landscaping
This is the last lot in the area to develop and the ability to meet the storm water criteria
has been challenging yet accomplished through the installation of a narrow basin along
the east property line. This narrow basin is located between a screen fence and the drive
aisle for the parking lot. This design limits the location/spacing of the trees that are to be
spaced 40 foot on center. A condition has been added that will accomplish this spacing
while ensuring the storm water are achieved.
B. Section 3.3.1 [C] (1) - Public Sites, Reservations, and Dedications
The plat indicates the proper dedication for street rights -of -way for internal local streets,
and drainage, utility, and access easements needed to serve the Project.
C. Section 3.5.3[D] —Character and Image
Aspen Dental Care, PDP, #01-09
Administrative Hearing
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
April 28, 2009 Page 3 of 6
FACTS AND FINDINGS
1. Site Context/Background Information
N: LMN; existing animal hospital (Countryside)
E: RL; existing single-family residential (Sunstone Village, Fourth Subdivision)
S: LMN; existing neighborhood center (Sunstone Mixed -Use)
W: E; existing business park (Collindale)
The property was annexed as part of the Harmony Annexation #3 in October, 1977. It was
zoned T — Transitional. The property contained one existing farmhouse. It was rezoned to RLP —
Low Density Planned Residential (with a planned unit development condition) in March, 1982.
In April, 1982, a one lot subdivision (titled Timberline Subdivision, First Filing) was approved
on the property. This subdivision dedicated a 60' right-of-way for South Timberline Road, a 20'
- wide drainage easement along the north boundary, and an 8' - wide utility easement along the
west boundary.
In December, 1988, the City acquired the 20' wide drainage easement, plus an additional 20'
along the north boundary, for a regional storm water channel. This drainage area shows up on the
subdivision plat for the Speights PUD as Tract A. The City also purchased the 8' wide utility
easement, with an additional 2' for a total of 10', along the west property boundary as additional
right-of-way for South Timberline Road.
The Planning and Zoning Board approved the (seven lot) Speights PUD — Final on May 18,
1992, for a mixed -use development on approximately 2.1 acres. The PUD contained a veterinary
clinic/residence in the existing farmhouse (Lot 6), 5 new single-family lots (Lots 1 — 5), and
future business service uses on Lot 7. Lots 1 - 6 were granted final approval, Lot 7 was granted
preliminary approval only.
In March of 1997, in order to implement City Plan, the seven lot Speights PUD was rezoned
from RLP (with a PUD condition) to RL - Low Density Residential. The original basis for the
RL zone was that the PUD was approved and platted for single-family homes and was
substantially complete. As such, the Speights PUD was considered to be an established
neighborhood and was, therefore, not considered eligible for the new LMN zone district. At the
time of the City Plan rezoning process, March of 1997, Staff involved with the City Plan
implementation and rezonings was not cognizant of the fact that the 2.1 acre Speights PUD was
platted as existing and proposed business service uses and single-family lots, and not just as
single-family lots. Consequently, Staff inadvertently zoned the seven lot PUD as if it was already
developed or eligible for single-family building permits when, in fact, a portion of the property
had development and re -development potential. Since the City Plan rezoning to RL, the existing
Countryside Animal Hospital remained a viable commercial use and the five single-family lots
were developed, but only Lot 7 (with a previous preliminary approval for business service uses)
remained vacant. With frontage on South Timberline Road, classified as a major arterial street,
Aspen Dental Care, PDP, #01-09
Administrative Hearing
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
April 28, 2009 Page 2 of 6
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 5:00 p.m. on April 28, 2009 in Conference Room A, 281 N. College Avenue,
Fort Collins, Colorado.
HEARING TESTIMONY, WRITTEN COMMENTS AND OTHER EVIDENCE:
The Hearing Officer accepted during the hearing the following evidence: (1) Planning
Department Staff Report; (2) application, plans, maps and other supporting documents submitted
by the applicant and the applicant's representatives to the City of Fort Collins; and (3) a tape
recording of the public hearing. The LUC, the City's Comprehensive Plan (City Plan), and the
formally promulgated policies of the City are all considered part of the evidence considered by
the Hearing Officer.
The following is a list of those who attended the meeting:
From the City:
Steve Olt, City Planner
From the Applicant:
Kevin Brazelton — Northern Engineering
Tom Kalert — Architecture Plus
From the Public:
None
Written Comments:
None
CITY OF FORT COLLINS
ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER
TYPE I ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION
ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING DATE: April 28, 2009
PROJECT NAME: Aspen Dental Care PDP
CASE NUMBER: #01-09
APPLICANT: Architecture Plus
c/o Shannon Doyle
318 East Oak Street
Fort Collins, Colorado 80524
OWNER: Lindsey Properties LLC
1017 Luke Street
Fort Collins, Colorado 80524
HEARING OFFICER: Steven J. Dush, AICP
Director of Current Planning
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The Applicant has submitted a request to construct a new 2,600 square foot, single story dental
office building. The building is to be 19 feet, 6 inches high. The property is 19,575 square feet
(0.45 acre) in size and is located at 3838 South Timberline Road (just south of the existing
Countryside Animal Hospital).
SUMMARY OF HEARING OFFICER DECISION: Conditional Approval
ZONING DISTRICT: LMN — Low Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval
City of
Fort Collins
May 5, 2009
Dear Participant:
Planning, Development and
Transportation Services
Current Planning
281 N. College Ave.
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580
970.221.6750
970.224.6134 - fax
fcgov.com/Currentp/anning
RE: Administrative Hearing for: Aspen Dental Project Development Plan (PDP)
Final Action Date: May 4, 2009
Appeal Application due to City Clerk by: May 18, 2009
Enclosed is a copy of the Type I Administrative Hearing Findings, Conclusions, and
Decision for the Aspen Dental Care PDP Administrative Hearing. The Hearing Officer has
approved the application with condition.
This final decision of approval may be appealed to the City Council in accordance with
Section 2-48 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins. The appellant must submit written
notice of appeal, reasons for the appeal and a filing fee of $100 to the City Clerk's Office
within 14 days of the date of final action by the Hearing Officer by the appeal by date
shown above.
Information regarding the grounds for appeal is available on the City Clerk's page of the
City's website at http://fcgov.com/cityclerk/appeals.php. If appealed, the City Clerk will
place the item on the Council agenda for hearing as expeditiously as possible. The City
Clerk will provide written notice of an appeal from a final decision of the Hearing Officer to
the City Council to the appellant, the applicant and all other parties -in -interest 10 days prior
to the date set for the hearing. An appeal of the Hearing Officer's final decision is based
on the minutes of the proceedings at the Administrative Hearing and any other materials
received by the Hearing Officer. New evidence may not be considered on an appeal. The
City Council may uphold, overturn, or modify the decision of the Hearing Officer.
If you have specific questions about the appeal process, please contact me at 221-6750.
Sincer
to a Dush
Current Planning Director