HomeMy WebLinkAboutCHOICE CENTER MIXED-USE REDEVELOPMENT - PDP - PDP110006 (15-08) - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTESsl1 i - In
�riri� i��n _ 28LN, �o12'�g✓Pi 2z/ �zr,Yo
A 7�B1IV
1 2,2
r;,
a
f 4f it - I l --7 Z. —_
� F J"o 3 c c�facc P,rD,� �3�r�r�. /Q� Zos-916.6yi9 116tfT 7
N/AG�L --�'�L_0 �' �a B�r�± AC_ ,�•s.yw �'1u A(,?,* ca
35A2 3. Dtd. colt
179v� P'e7OU'PO4- JTJ V. i�o�^✓TAw �pr� Co co,rrzq - 4rVI J21 _.z4-3_) c�������,.1,���►n co -
5c.joi Lr.JL- i=G- Qbrer %7b-?Yf-7YS/ a��+.l.....��
iV3 w•Mt. A , pt .,so 4-2g-19z4_-_
L&WE LAW&) Z5¢¢�;[� -pq-jrz_ opo A
�
fW®s#sdxlk
It 1
Zy 1% %urrStVr/i PV. fit. COI ( -S 970- Z67-
jt;nsRQ ,mIell dfVn
cur++
.cowl
5 layne.. lah"
v)owi.,c.om-
•Nei
I ry AOW Ann UADIr w �i J-o_r_c_�K'—meIr4l4 rnk{ Nqr cd
0170 -oZ'�% �
�y .$ram ri /Sd?5 �•/Ice �`�i�.� vr Aft �6 6 R
a
2 J� Sri ih n Pir,
C. The one exception approved by the Hearing Officer is as follows:
(1) The Transportation Level of Service Requirements located in Section.3.6,4 Direct
Onsite Access to Pedestrian and Bicycle Destinations. This standard cannot be.
met given the specific location. The addition of bike lanes to the adjoining streets
is neither practical nor feasible.
D. The Choice Center Mixed -Use PDP complies with all applicable zone district standard
contained in Article 4, Division 4.21 Commercial District of the Land Use Code.
E. A Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) is in process for the site. FEMA
approval is. required. The City Stormwater Utility will provide assistance to the
developer.
DECISION
The Hearing Officer hereby enters the following rulings:
1. The Choice. Center Mixed -Use PDP #15-08 request for Modification of the
standard in Section 3.5.4 of the Land Use Code is hereby approved by the Hearing Officer.
2. The Choice Center Mixed -Use PDP PDP #15-08 is hereby approved by the
Hearing Officer, subject to the following condition:
a. The Choice Center Mixed -Use PDP #15-08 Development Plan is
expressly conditioned on FEMA approval and receipt.of a Conditional
Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR). The standards of Division 3, Section
3.3.3 — Water Hazards will be met prior to, final approval of the project.
Dated November 15, 2008 per, authority granted y Sections 1.49(#) and 2.1 of the Land
Use Code. / ,
Richard V. Lopez
Hearing Officer
the modification is requested equally well or better than would a plan which complies with the
standard for which a modification is requested; or
(2) The granting of a modification from the strict application of any standard would,
without impairing the intent and purpose of this Land Use Code, substantially alleviate an
existing, defined and described problem of city-wide concern or would result in a substantial
benefit to the city by reason of thefact that the proposed project would substantially address an
important community need specifically and expressly defined and described in the City
Comprehensive Plan or in an adopted policy, ordinance or resolution of the City Council, and the
strict application of such a standard would render the project practically infeasible; or
(3) By reason of exceptional physical conditions or other extraordinary and
exceptional situations, unique to such property, including, but not limited to, physical conditions
such as exceptional narrowness, shallowness or topography, or physical conditions which hinder
the ownerability to install a solar energy system, the strict application of the standard sought to
be modified would result in unusual and exceptional practical difficulties, or exceptional or
undue hardship upon the owner of such property, provided that such difficulties or hardship are
not caused by the act or omission of the applicant; or
(4) The plan as submitted will not diverge from the standards of the Land Use Code
that are authorized by this Division to be modified except in a nominal, inconsequential way
when considered from the perspective of the entire development plan, and will continue to
advance.the purposes of the Land Use Code as contained in Section 1.2.2.
The Hearing Officer finds that the applicant's proposed waiver of the standard would not be
detrimental to the public good and that it meets the requirements of Sections 2.8.2(H)(1) of the
LUC. Therefore, the Hearing Officer approves this modification of this standard.
SUMMARY
The Hearing Officer based upon a review to the Staff evaluation, the testimonies of the public
hearing participants and being fully apprised in this matter herein adopts the following findings
of fact:
A. The Choice Center Mixed -Use PDP, contains uses permitted in the C- Commercial
District, subject to an administrative review and public hearing.
B. The Choice Center Mixed -Use PDP, meets all applicable standards as put forth in Article
3 - General Development Standards of the LUC, including Division 3.2 - Site Planning
and Design Standards; Division 3.3 - Engineering Standards; Division 3.4 -
Environmental, Natural, and Cultural; Division 3.5 - Building Standards; and, Section 3.6
- Transportation and Circulation.
u
ARTICLE 3 - GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
The Choice Center Mixed-Use-PDP development proposal meets the applicable standards
in Article.3 - General Development Standards of the LUC. The Hearing Officerr herein adopts
the Staff memorandum and incorporates same. The Hearing Officer finds that the proposal
complies with the following:
A. Mixed -use dwellings, multi -family and retail are all permitted uses in the C -
Commercial district, subject to an Administrative Hearing.
B. Modification to Development Requirements. Transportation Level of Service
Requirement Section 3.6.4. Direct Onsite Access to Pedestrian and Bicycle Destinations:
[Section 3.2.2( c)(6) and Section 3.6.4]
The exception requested concerns onsite access to pedestrian and bicycle destinations.
There are no bike lanes on College Avenue or Prospect Avenue between Shields and Timberline.
No bike lanes are proposed on the City's Bike Plan because the high volumes and high speed of
traffic along College are not conducive to safe bicycling. Bicyclists are expected to use the new
Mason Corridor trail, which the City has constructed as far north as the Spring Creek Trail.
Completion of the trail north to Laurel St. is expected by 2009.
The Hearing Officer notes these constraints on this project's ability to provide bike
access that meets multi -modal level of service standards as described in Appendix H of the
Transportation Master Plan, specifically for directness. The request for modification of standard
is noted which adheres to Section 28.2(H) of the Land Use Code. The modification cites the
hardship rationale and states that adding bike lanes to either of these streets is neither practical
nor feasible.
The Mason Corridor is not a direct path between residents and.their most common
destination, CSU, but it is a dedicated bike path that is not excessively indirect either. A more
Northerly and thus more direct connection to this trail is not feasible because of the grade
change, the imminent bus rapid transit fixed guideway and the existing BNSF railroad, all of
which are safely crossed at an existing underpass on the Spring Creek Trail immediately south of
the project. "The project has provided an 8-foot wide bike and pedestrian path connecting to the
Spring Creek Trail which, in turn connects to the Mason Trail past the railroad underpass.
As specified in Section 2.8.2 Modification Review Procedures, (H) (Standards), a
modification of standards may be approved only if the Hearing Officer finds that the granting of
the modification would not be detrimental to the public good, and that:
(1) The plan as submitted will promote the general purpose of the standard for which
5
significant capital improvements have been made both upstream and downstream of this site to
prevent a similar disaster from happening again. This site has far fewer potential impacts than it
did prior to these improvements, but the remapping of this parcel is not official.
The developer is in the process of working through this remapping and updating of the site
through a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) with assistance from the City's
Stormwater Utility. Therefore, approval.of the Project Development Plan is expressly
conditioned on FEMA approval as noted in the Findings section of this report.
Construction within the floodplain shall also be restricted per the condition, as noted below.
A neighborhood meeting was not required for this project and none was held. No written
comments from the public have been received by the planner on this project. The project has
had a sign posted, the hearing was noticed by mail to affected property owners and notice of the
hearing was posted in the Coloradoan.
2. Compliance with Applicable C—Commercial District Standards
A. Purpose: The purpose of the Commercial District is as follows:
"The Commercial District is intended to be a setting for development,
redevelopment and in. fi of a wide. range of community and regional retail uses,
offices and personal and business services. Secondarily, it can accommodate a
wide range of other uses including creative forms of housing.
While some Commercial District areas may continue to meet the need for auto -
related and other auto -oriented uses, it is the city's intent that the Commercial
District emphasize safe and convenient personal mobility in many forms, with
planning and design that accommodates pedestrians. "
The proposed project will contain four buildings: a 4-story multi -family residence in the western
portion of the site, a 4-5 story mixed -use dwelling at the northwest corner of Stuart and College,
and two rehabilitated, existing retail buildings (one 1-story and one 2-story) along College
Avenue, which together will greatly increase the density of this infill and redevelopment site.
The project's close proximity to CSU, the Mason Corridor and regional bike and walking trails
make it a convenient and logical location for private student housing. The project will provide
much needed aesthetic improvement for the existing retail buildings and will hopefully lay the
groundwork for high quality future redevelopment in the area.
ARTICLE 2 - ADMINISTRATION
Section 2.2.2. Step 2. Neighborhood Meetings.
None were required and none have. been held.
4
A. The Choice Center Mixed -Use PDP contains commercial and residential uses.
Mixed -uses including residential dwellings are permitted in the. C-Commercial District, subject
to an Type 1 Administrative Hearing, The Project Development Plan complies with the
applicable Administrative and General Development standards and the standards of the C-
Commercial District, except where a modification of the standards have been requested.
Although the C- Commercial District is intended to contain predominantly commercial uses,
residential uses are permitted. In the Choice Center Mixed -Use PDP, the residential uses will.
comprise a majority of the total square footage.
B. The Choice Center Mixed -Use PDP meets all applicable standards as put forth in
Article 3 - General Development Standards of the LUC, including Division 3.2 - Site Planning
and Design Standards; Division 3.4 - Environmental, Natural, and Cultural ; Division 3.5 -
Building Standards; Division 3.8- Supplementary Standards; and Division 3.10 - Development
Standards for the Transit -Oriented Development (TOD) Overlay Zone.
C. The Choice Center Mixed -Use PDP complies with all other applicable Land Use
and Development Standards contained in ARTICLE 4 - DISTRICTS, C-Commercial District
Standards.
Compatibility with Surrounding Uses.
The evidence and testimony established that the proposed mixture of residential and
commercial uses are compatible with the surrounding areas. Although Choice Center will
contain predominantly residential uses, the. siting of these uses on the Western portion of the site
with the commercial uses to the Eastern provide a reasonable transition. The predominant
Commercial uses in the area will continue and are detailed below.
The surrounding zoning and land.uses are as follows:
N: C---Commercial, existing restaurant and retail (Chuck E. Cheese, Harbor Freight, etc)
with CC Community Commercial, existing retail and office beyond;
E: C—Commercial, existing retail and office with LMN—Low Density Mixed -Use
Neighborhood District, existing single family houses beyond;
S: C---Commercial, existing retail, undeveloped land, and Spring Creek park and trail;
W: E—Employment and CSU: Undeveloped land with some Colorado State University
Research. Facility (CSURF) agricultural facilities.
The Western portion of the site is the former site of the Johnson Mobile Home Park which was
destroyed in the 1997 flood. This portion of the site is now vacant land. The Eastern portion of
the site contains the Choice Center strip shopping center which is in operation.
Portions of the site are currently in the floodplain and.floodway. Since the flood of 1997,
3
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING: Evidence presented to the Hearing Officer established the
fact that the hearing was properly posted, legal notices mailed and notice published.
PUBLIC'HEARING; The Hearing Officer, presiding pursuant to the Fort Collins Land Use
Code, opened the hearing at approximately 4:05 p.m. on November 3, in the: Conference Room
A, 281 North College, Fort Collins, Colorado.
HEARING TESTIMONY, WRITTEN COMMENTS AND OTHER EVIDENCE:
The Hearing: Officer accepted during the hearing the following evidence: (1) Planning
Department Staff Reports (2) application, plans, maps and other supporting documents submitted
by the applicant and the applicants representatives to the City of Fort Collins; (3) public
testimony provided during the hearing. (4) The Land'Use Code, the City Comprehensive Plan
(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:
Anne Aspen, City of Fort Collins
Matt Wempe, City of Fort Collins
Dana Leavitt, City of Fort Collins
Glen Schlueter, City of Fort Collins
Kathleen Bracke, City of Fort Collins
Jen Petrik, City of Fort Collins
From the Applicant:
Jeff Jones, Capstone Development
Walker P. May, Capstone Development
Jim Sell, Jim Sell Design
Dave Pietenpol, Jim Sell Design
Eric Bracke, ELB Engineering
Michael Welker, Nolte Engineering
Laine Landau, Nolte Engineering
Cheryl Olson
Kelly Brown
Jason Ortiz
From the Public
Approximately 4 citizens attended the hearing. A copy of the sign in sheet is attached
hereto.
FACTS AND FINDINGS
2
CITY OF FORT COLLINS
ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER
TYPE 1 ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION
ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING DATE: November 3. 2008
PROJECT NAME:
CASE NUMBER:
APPLICANT:
OWNER:
HEARING OFFICER:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Choice Center Mixed -Use Redevelopment PDP
PDP #15-08
Dave Pietenpol
Jim Sell Design
153 W. Mountain Ave.
Fort Collins, CO. 80521
Capstone Development Corp.
431. Office Park Drive
Birmingham, AL 35223
Richard V. Lopez
This is a request to redevelop a_ 10.49 acre site near the southwest comer of College and Prospect
which currently contains about 6. acres of vacant land and 5 existing buildings. As proposed, 3
of the buildings will be razed, the remaining 2 will be rehabilitated.and 2 new residential
buildings will be constructed to create a mixed -use project that offers private, off -campus
student housing and retail. A total of 270,434 sq. ft. of residential space is proposed with 166
one -to -four bedroom units in Building 1 and 55 two -to -four bedroom units plus 7,410 sq. ft. of
new retail in Building 2. The existing retail buildings along College will be expanded by
approximately 4,000sq.ft. each to a total of about 30,920sq.ft. for Building 3 (on two "floors) and
15,910 for Building 4 (on one floor). The property is located near the southwest corner of
Prospect Street and College Avenue. The site is within City limits and is zoned C—Commercial
District.
SUMMARY OF HEARING OFFICER DECISION: Approval, with condition.
ZONING DISTRICT: C-Commercial District
City of
,,.Fort Collins
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
kgov com/currentplanning
November 18, 2008
Dear Participant in the Choice Center Mixed -use Redevelopment PDP Administrative
Hearing,
Enclosed is a copy of the Type I Administrative Hearing Findings, Conclusions, and
Decision for the Choice Center Mixed -use Redevelopment Project Development Plan.
The Hearing Officer has approved the application with one 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. Information regarding the grounds for appeal is available on the City
Clerk's page of the City's website at httD:/ffcgov.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 221-6206.
Sincerely,
Anne H. Aspen, AIC
Senior City Planner