Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3425 S. SHIELDS ST. MIXED-USE - PDP - 28-07 - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTES (3)ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING PROJECT 3425-S. &wAtVo AUMgY-z1at., DATE Al ■ / ■ 4- o ♦ V���1� r 1 . ♦�i �b ■ r :' r r i i, i w , �; , A 5�1 ` � ■ �.' � � ♦ • � err �� ■ ■ ■ IteY- l-70 3425 S, Shields Mixed Use PD:- Administrative Hearing Findings, Conclusions, and Decision November 1, 2007 Page 8 of 8 requested. Enhanced crosswalks at two intersections with the drive aisle are an integral part of the site plan and promote safe pedestrian passage. Further, the building placement toward the center of the lot, as opposed to a compliant plan with residential buildings pushed to the lot edges, enhance privacy for neighbors and on -site residents. DECISION The 3425 S. Shields Mixed Use Project Development Plan #28-07, including a modification to Section 3.5.3 (13)(1) is hereby approved by the Hearing Officer subject to the following conditions: 1. The Applicant shall provide additional right-of-way and utility easement to current standards along S. Shields Street during Final Plan review. 2. The Applicant shall provide additional landscape screening within the Final Landscape Plan along the north and south property lines to buffer and screen adjacent properties from the Project. Dated this 14th day of November 2007, per authority granted by Sections 1.4.9(E) and 2.1 of the Land Use Code. Cameron Gloss 3 Planning and Zoning Director 3425 S, Shields Mixed Use PDP- Administrative Hearing Findings, Conclusions, and Decision November 1, 2007 Page 7 of 8 In addition to the general neighborhood compatibility issues that were raised, testimony provided at the hearing questioned whether the standards for off-street parking were being met by the PDP. It was an expressed fear of the opponents that the Project will have insufficient parking to address the needs of the development. As outlined on the proposed site plan and corroborated by the City staff at the hearing, off-street parking space required under the Land Use Code has been provided. The commercial building is a little over 18,000sf, so a maximum of 55 spaces is allowed. 55 commercial spaces are proposed, plus 3 handicap accessible spaces. The Staff Report summarizes the PDP's compliance with these standards and there was no evidence submitted at the hearing to contradict the statements and conclusion of the Staff Report concerning compliance or to otherwise refute compliance with the Article 3 Standards. SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS A. The 3425 S. Shield Mixed Use Project Development Plan is subject to administrative review and the requirements of the Land Use Code (LUC). B. The 3425 S. Shield Mixed Use Project Development Plan complies with all applicable district standards of Section 4.6 of the Land Use Code, (MMN) Medium Density Mixed Use Neighborhood zone district based on the proposed uses. Personal and business service shops, offices, financial services, clinics and small veterinary clinics, and limited mixed -use restaurants will be subject to Planning and Zoning Board review if and when such uses are proposed in the future. C. The 3425 S. Shield Mixed Use Project Development Plan complies with all applicable General Development Standards contained in Article 3 of the Land Use Code, except where a modification to Section 3.5.1 (13)(1) has been granted. D. With respect to the Modification to Section 3.5.3(B)(1), the connecting walkway standard: 1. Granting the requested modification would not be detrimental to the public good and would not impair the intent and purposes of the Land Use Code. 2. The modification will advance or protect the public interests and purposes of the standard for which the modification is requested equally well as a plan which complies with the standard for which the modification is 3425 S, Shields Mixed Use PDP' Administrative Hearing Findings, Conclusions, and Decision November 1, 2007 Page 6 of 8 that neighboring property taxes would subsequently rise. Other written comments seem to indicate the opposite concern; that the Project would result in a diminution of area property values due to the proposed uses and development density. Although the Hearing Officer finds that some of the concerns raised by the opponents of the PDP were insightful and might potentially improve acceptance of the PDP by the neighboring landowners, the PDP must be judged under the existing applicable regulations of the Fort Collins Land Use Code. These regulations provide sufficient specificity to determine that the Applicant and Owner have designed the PDP in conformance with the applicable regulations and there is no authority for the Hearing Officer to mandate that the Applicant or Owner exceed the minimum requirements of the Land Use Code, and other applicable regulations, in designing the development 2. Compliance with Article 4 and the MMN — Medium Density Mixed Use District Standards: The Project Development Plan complies with all applicable requirements of Article 4 and the MMN zone district. The Staff Report summarizes the PDP's compliance with these standards. In particular, the proposed multi -family residential units and limited commercial/retail uses are permitted within the MMN zone district subject to an administrative review. As noted see Section 4.6(2)(a) and (c) of the LUC. Personal and business service shops, offices, financial services, clinics and small veterinary clinics, and limited mixed -use restaurants will be subject to Planning and Zoning Board review if and when such uses are proposed in the future. The Project is providing approximately 6700 square feet of plaza space for the residents, which exceeds the six percent or 5227 square feet minimum. The Project is also in conformance with the minimum density standards of Section 4.6(D), and Section 4.6(E)(1)(d), land use standards relating to building height, calling for buildings to be three stories or less. 3. Compliance with Article 3 of the Land Use Code — General Development Standards The Project Development Plan complies with all applicable sections of Article 3 of the LUC except the Orientation to a Connecting Walkway Standard found in Section 3.5.3(B)(1) where a modification of standard is being requested. The Hearing Officer has reviewed the request for a modification to the standard mandating building orientation to a connecting walkway and found that the applicable review criteria have been met. Enhanced crosswalks at two intersections with the drive aisle are an integral part of the site plan and promote clear, direct and safe pedestrian passage. 3425 S, Shields Mixed Use PDN Administrative Hearing Findings, Conclusions, and Decision November 1, 2007 Page 5 of 8 contained within a recorded public access easement. Based on the Applicant's Transportation Impact Study (TIS) the evidence presented on the issue of traffic impacts affecting the abutting streets and "cut through" traffic within the neighborhood, the Hearing Officer is convinced that vehicular conflicts will not increase in any significant manner by the traffic generated by the Project. Traffic projections provided in the applicant's Transportation Impact Study are based on actual traffic counts within the area in addition to Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) trip generation rates associated with the proposed townhomes, and potential non-residential uses. The TIS established that the Shields and Richmond intersection is not adequately separated from the Horsetooth intersection to the south to accommodate a traffic signal. Further, the recorded Horsetooth Commons subdivision plat provides direct evidence that the Applicant and Owner has the right to unencumbered access to the south side of the property from Richmond Drive. The Hearing Officer acknowledges and appreciates that nearby residents and owners have provided careful thought in the framing of their concerns; however, the weight of evidence presented by the Applicant and corroborated through the City staff's analysis, supports a finding of compliance with the Transportation Level of Service Requirements for vehicles, pedestrians and bicycles and that the Project has sufficient legal access from two public streets. Requests were made to the Hearing Officer by area residents to consider the impacts on the quality of life that might arise due to the existence of the proposed residential units relatively close to existing residential units to the north and south. Admittedly, many, if not most, neighboring residential owners would not desire attached residences, that may be more likely to become rental units, within the immediate vicinity of their homes. However, the subject property has long been planned and zoned for attached residential units, such as contemplated by the PDP. One neighbor, in particular, expressed concern in writing about the impact to views from her residence. The Hearing Officer both sympathizes with the neighboring property owners and finds the Applicant/Owner has attempted, through building placement and orientation toward the center of the site, and landscape treatments, to mitigate impacts between the lawfully permitted use of the subject property and the neighboring residences. While the proposed buffering is sufficient in most cases, the Hearing Officer acknowledges the concerns of abutting residential property owners and has added a condition to this approval requiring additional landscaping within the planting strip along the north and property lines. Written statements and public testimony were received expressing concerns about the potential for the Project to cause an increase or decrease in neighboring property values. One neighbor testified that the proposed project design was incompatible with the character of the surrounding area due to the superior architecture and materials as compared with neighboring buildings and 3425 S, Shields Mixed Use PDF, Administrative Hearing Findings, Conclusions, and Decision November 1, 2007 Page 4 of 8 W: MMN—Medium Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood District (Existing townhome residential: Casa Grande Condominiums) with RL—Low Density Residential (Existing Wagon Wheel subdivision) beyond. The subject property currently contains an RV storage lot and one residence with no historical significance. The evidence established that the owner of the subject property was originally entitled by past City zone districts to the use of the site for multi -family residential development. The Planned Residential (RP) zone district was assigned to this property in 1980 at the time of annexation, which is comparable to the present zoning of Medium Density Mixed Use Neighborhood (MMN). Therefore, the right for multi -family residential on the subject property predates much, if not all, of the residential development within the immediately surrounding area. Horsetooth Commons Subdivision to the south was approved in 1987, where the Chaparral PUD and Subdivision abutting to the north was approved in 1988. As a result, neighboring residential owners understood, or should be charged with some level of knowledge, that the subject property would be used for multi -family residential purposes. Testimony was offered at the hearing by neighboring residential landowners concerning the anticipated or feared impacts of the proposed development and its design upon the residential and commercial land uses of the Horsetooth Commons Subdivision and the residential land uses within the Chaparral Subdivision. These impacts included increased traffic, access, parking, noise, decrease/increase in residential property values, and negative impacts to views. Evidence further established that one neighborhood meeting and other opportunities were made available for the opponents of the project to engage the Applicant and Owner in the property's design and operational issues. The Applicant and Owner acknowledged that they had taken steps during the public process to adjust the design of the proposed development plan to help mitigate impacts on the neighboring residential uses. Unfortunately, the adjustments did not, to some attendees, address the potential issues and concerns. A common issue repeatedly raised by many opponents involved adverse traffic impacts in the immediate area of S. Shields, north of Horsetooth Road. The opponents specifically expressed concern about the amount of additional traffic generated by the Development and the potential for users to become frustrated with the longer wait times to make northbound movements from the Development, particularly during peak traffic times, which may result in greater cut through traffic on adjacent residential streets. A related concern expressed by the adjacent Grease Monkey operator was the congestion created at the south driveway accessing the site from Richmond Drive. The driveway is 3425 S, Shields Mixed Use PDP Administrative Hearing Findings, Conclusions, and Decision November 1, 2007 Page 3 of 8 Rich Piper, 6318 Cattail Court Jack & Gloria Weeks, 3518 Laredo Lane Sandy & Lee Maxwell, 3336 Santa Fe Court Meg & Dirk Hopkins, 3516 Laredo Lane Brett Shasp, 3352 Laredo Lane Steve Bratton, 1200 Patterson Court Germaine Salazar, 3341 Laredo Lane Keith Vestermark, 149 Stanley Circle, Estes Park Thomas & Joelle Schumacher, 3348 Santa Fe Court Tom Hassell, 1114 Richmond Drive Written Comments: E-mail message from Vicki Cordova at 3324 Unit A. Hickok Drive to Anne Aspen dated November 1, 2007 expressing opposition to the Project. E-mail message from Glenn A. Stephens to Anne Aspen dated October 29, 2007 expressing opposition to the Project. E-mail message from John & Betty Yoder at 3425 Laredo Lane Unit B to Anne Aspen dated October 25, 2007 expressing opposition to the Project. Letter to the Administrative Hearing Officer from the Casa Grande Condominium Association dated October 26, 2007 identifying four areas of concern. Letter from Penne Howell dated and hand delivered August 27, 2007 expressing opposition to the Project. 1. Compatibility with Surrounding Uses The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows: N: RL—Low Density Residential (Existing single-family residential: Chapparal subdivision with Wagon Wheel subdivision beyond); E: MMN—Medium Density Mixed -Use Neighorhood District (Existing multi- family residences: Five Oaks Village at Cunningham Corners Condominiums, Willow Grove Village at Cunningham Corners, Chestnut Village Condominiums and Rosetree Village at Cunningham Corners Condominiums); SE: MMN—Medium Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood District (Existing Multi- family residences: Rose Tree Village) S: MMN—Medium Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood District (Existing duplex residences: Horsetooth Commons) and NC —Neighborhood Commercial (Existing commercial: Grease Monkey); and 3425 S, Shields Mixed Use PDN Administrative Hearing Findings, Conclusions, and Decision November 1, 2007 Page 2 of 8 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Conditional Approval 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. PUBLIC HEARING The Hearing Officer, presiding pursuant to the Fort Collins Land Use Code, opened the hearing at approximately 5:30 p.m. on November 1, 2007 in the City Council Chambers at 300 La Porte 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 public testimony provided during 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: Anne Aspen, City Planner From the Applicant: Chris Matkins Linda Ripley, VF Ripley Associates From the Public: Jane Householder, 3318 Hickok Unit D Marie Edwards, 3400 Laredo Lane Unit A Norma Boone, 3449 Laredo Lane Unit A Joan O'Connor, 3449 Laredo Lane Unit B Lucille Payton, 3318 Hickok Unit C Tom Pierce, 3412 Laredo Lane Unit A Sean Jens, 3367 Santa Fe Court Renae Matkins, 1643 Dogwood Court Planning, Development and Transportatio Planning and Zoning 'ervices City of 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: November 1, 2007 3425 S. Shields Mixed -Use Project Development Plan #28-07 Joanna Frye VF Ripley Associates 401 W. Mountain Ave. Fort Collins, CO 80521 Chris Matkins 1643 Dogwood Ct. Fort Collins, CO 80524 Cameron Gloss Planning and Zoning Director The Applicant has submitted a Project Development Plan (referred to herein as the "Project" or the "PDP") proposing redevelopment of the three -acre storage site at 3425 S. Shields, near the northwest corner of Shields and Richmond, into a four -building project with one three-story commercial building on Shields and three three-story, multi- family residential buildings behind. A total of 36 dwelling units are proposed SUMMARY OF HEARING OFFICER DECISION: Conditional Approval ZONING DISTRICT: MMN—Medium Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood District. 281 North College Avenue • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6750 • FAX (970) 416-2020