Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRAVEN VIEW - PDP - 12-05 - DECISION - FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & DECISIONMm(*n;4yxHve-o iitaOn y PROJECT Y-aV/WVrPw PDP+ M DATE r3 DeC• 675 %fp,p In DRESS Z/ . 5 PHONEW Gt !c' a 1 C� 1� S /� t l lso nILOCR, i 6 l Gc2S>< l/i ✓�z p[75Z5 ZO c/- Ov 7Z In o� �k 5I zZ - 0&P 8 _ IC AW No THERIN ZLC 5, CCLUG(gG AVE, 6 100S�SZ 1 {jIL(.(a �BYjVj PilVj Pi}/j IyleQit/�c iC�':c M4-rT NtTW 7Z Cc.67?,) 94y Aj T>e. 8653`S 6Coq-z00 l'ncleIi'c tie 1-t onl © `�cr 37ss �r t=arm, Lva� SosZS ZZ�v- 1414- �n� (0� S -I-Afi ttk I �505ZI 215- 6&(� f�RGnK- Heim , Ae I ', co mz CA le.r 532 _S.-ELL*ll 916S211 �2lG $firtin/�7 [J /Lt/46dJGYaA DsL/ /6 G37 o rtrNly�? Ea Co.-•u+ l , Gl 3- { vf,, �'1 J'of re 1jr� �L iY rr?C.�as„w Zr 416cY/r s c L, wtn�1�'1 j Raven View PDP/Modification Administrative Hearing Findings, Conclusions, and Decision December 13, 2005 Page 7 of 7 The Hearing Officer acknowledges and appreciates that residents have provided careful thought in the framing of their concerns about pedestrian access; however, the weight of evidence presented by the Applicant and corroborated by the City staff, supports a finding that this infill development site is physically constrained, alternative pedestrian connections are not available, and that the existing sidewalks along S. Taft Hill Road, while not optimal, provide a sufficient route to the school. SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS A. The Raven View Project Development Plan and Request for Modification of Standard is subject to administrative review and the requirements of the Land Use Code (LUC). B. The Raven View Project Development Plan complies with all applicable district standards of Section 4.4 of the Land Use Code, (LMN) Low Density Mixed Use Neighborhood zone district. C. The Raven View Project Development Plan request for modification of standard to the Transportation Level of Service requirements for pedestrian movements of Section 2.8.2(H)(3) is warranted by reason of existing exceptional physical hardship and unique physical characteristics based on site configuration, location and proximity to existing public sidewalks. D. The Raven View Project Development Plan complies with all applicable General Development Standards contained in Article 3 of the Land Use Code, except where a modification has been granted under this approval. DECISION The Raven View Request for Modification of Standard to Section 2.8.2(H) (3) and Project Development Plan #12-05/12-05A, is hereby approved by the Hearing Officer Without Condition. Dated this 30th day of December 2005, per authority granted by Sections 1.4.9(E) and 2.1 of the Land Use Code. Cameron Gloss Current Plannin Director Raven View PDP/Modification Administrative Hearing Findings, Conclusions, and Decision December 13, 2005 Page 6 of 7 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 Transportation Level of Service standards found in Section 3.6.4(B)(2). The Staff Report summarizes the PDP's compliance with the applicable site planning and design, access, circulation, parking, solar access, engineering, building and project compatibility, building design, and transportation standards (except as noted) 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. 3. Compliance with the Review Criteria for Modification to Standard -Request to Modify the Pedestrian Level of Service (LOS) Standard In addition to the neighborhood compatibility issues that were raised, testimony provided at the hearing questioned the justification for a modification of the Transportation Level of Service Standards for pedestrian access. It was an expressed fear of some neighbors that the Project will cause an unsafe condition for pedestrians and, in particular, school age children housed within the development continuing to Moore Elementary school located to the south. The Applicant testified at the hearing that attempts were made to provide a more direct pedestrian connection from the development through the abutting property to the south, but the adjacent property owner was unwilling to grant a pedestrian access easement. Neighbors mentioned the perceived lack of City sidewalk maintenance as a deterrent to safe passage along the sidewalk, with particular emphasis on winter conditions. The Hearing Officer notes that sidewalk maintenance responsibility within the City of Fort Collins falls directly to abutting property owners. Property owner maintenance activities ranges all the way from sidewalk reconstruction, in cases were this is substantial vertical displacement or the concrete is structurally failing, to the prompt removal of snow and ice within 24 hours of winter storms pursuant to Section 24-21 of the City Code. There was discussion during the hearing about other comparable routes to school within the area. In particular, it was noted that there are schools within the Poudre School District, including nearby Moore and Dunn Elementary Schools, with pedestrian routes to school that include segments of attached sidewalks abutting arterial streets , C Raven View PDP/Modification Administrative Hearing Findings, Conclusions, and Decision December 13, 2005 Page 5 of 7 though it is not required under the City's development standards. The proposed development plan does not show fencing surrounding the detention pond located on proposed Tract E or along the single family lots located north of Corvid Way It was acknowledged that any fencing installed around the detention pond would need to facilitate the movement of storm drainage. As a response to a public comment, the Applicant also indicated a willingness to examine other design options rather than a back-to-back fence design that will result when the proposed 6 foot fence is constructed along the east property line and behind existing fences along the rear property lines of lots fronting Crestmore Drive. The Hearing Officer respectfully requests that the applicant consider consulting with the property owners potentially impacted by the development with respect to the fence design. Although the Hearing Officer finds that some of the neighborhood compatibility 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 Owners 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 Owners exceed the minimum requirements of the Land Use Code, and other applicable regulations, in designing the development. 2. Compliance with Article 4 and the LMN— Low Density Mixed Use Zoning District 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. In particular, the proposed residential density of 6.23 dwelling units per net acre is less than the maximum allowable residential density of 8 (eight) dwelling units per net acre permitted within the zone district. The development is exempt from the minimum density requirements in that it is located entirely within the City's designated Infill Area. Though this project is under 30 acres, the proposal includes three distinct housing types including single family attached units, single family detached units on standard lots and single family detached units on small lots. The Project is also in conformance with Section 4.17(D), land use standards relating to building height, calling for buildings to be two and one-half (2 %) stories or less. 5 Raven View PDP/Modification Administrative Hearing Findings, Conclusions, and Decision December 13, 2005 Page 4 of 7 design and operational issues. The Applicant acknowledged that they had taken steps to adjust the design of the proposed development plan to help mitigate impacts on the neighboring residents. It was further acknowledged that some of the residents at the public hearing were not in attendance at the neighborhood meeting and, therefore, did not provide comment earlier in the review process. One issue related to the impacts to future vehicular access on the adjacent property to the west, addressed as 532 S. Taft Hill Road, which presently derives secondary access through the proposed development site. The development plan includes a landscape strip and fence along the west property line which would prohibit access to 532 S. Taft Hill Road in the future. The property owner of 532 S. Taft Hill made a request at the public hearing that the applicant make design modifications to the development plan that would permit continued vehicular access from the subject property to 532 S. Taft Hill Road. No evidence was presented at the hearing substantiating existence of an access easement on the subject property that would grant such access rights nor that a prescriptive right had been legally established through court action. None of the City's development standards require that the informal access used by the adjacent property owner continue or be physically accommodated in the future. Therefore, the hearing officer is not authorized to require the Applicant to provide a future vehicle connection to the adjacent property. It was noted by the Applicant during the hearing that they would be willing to confer with the property owner to arrive at a potentially amicable solution. A common issue repeatedly raised by many residents involved adverse storm drainage impacts. It was an expressed fear of some neighbors that the stormwater runoff from the site could create an unreasonable and significant adverse impact to the neighborhood. As part of the Applicant's testimony, substantial attention was given to the issue of site grading and the design of the stormwater detention pond. As outlined in the Applicant's Final Drainage and Erosion Control Report and corroborated by the Applicant's Engineer at the hearing, runoff water will be detained on the property and will release at a two- year historic rate. In addition to the quantity of water, the detention design will ensure the quality of water. The site will be graded to transfer all stormwater flows generated from the development to the street system which will collect in a detention pond located on Tract E and then release to an existing underground storm sewer system. The detention pond will be landscaped with native grasses consistent with policies of the City's Stormwater utility. Based on the proposed drainage design and the testimony of the consulting engineer, the Hearing Officer is convinced that the applicable storm drainage standards will be met. To minimize visual impacts of the development to adjacent properties, and enhance privacy, the Applicant stated an intent during the hearing to extend the W-high wood fence along the entire project perimeter, if physically feasible, even 4 Raven View PDP/Modification Administrative Hearing Findings, Conclusions, and Decision December 13, 2005 Page 3 of 7 From the Public: Scott, Val and Dolores Gray, 614 South Taft Hill Road Frank Heine, 622 South Taft Hill Road Art Gonzales, 532 South Taft Hill Road Robert and Lois Gore, 521 Crestmore Place Eric Stenner, 917 W. Magnolia Street Sam Eliason, 529 Crestmore Place Larry Dunn, 2209 Glenmore Court Charles Fletcher, 2025 W. Mulberry Street Betty Patterson, 4418 Harpoon Court Written Comments: None FACTS AND FINDINGS 1. Compatibility with Surrounding Uses The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows: N: LMN—Low Density Mixed -use Neighborhood District —Existing residential with POL—Public Open Lands (City Park Nine Golf Course) beyond; W: RL—Low Density Residential District —Existing residential with LMN beyond; S: RL—Low Density Residential District —Existing residential with MMN— Medium Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood beyond; E: RL—Low Density Residential District —Existing residential. The property proposed for development is 8.18 acres in size. The Applicant proposes a total of 51 single-family units: 33 single-family attached units, 16 single-family detached units on small lots and 2 single-family detached units on standard lots. The net residential density proposed is 6.23 dwelling units per acre. Testimony was offered at the hearing by neighboring residential landowners concerning the anticipated or feared impacts of the proposed development and its design upon surrounding residences. These impacts included diminished vehicular access to adjacent properties, and perceived negative impacts to storm drainage flows and visual quality. Evidence established that one neighborhood meeting was made available for the neighboring residents to engage the Applicant and Owners in the property's 3 Raven View PDP/Modification Administrative Hearing Findings, Conclusions, and Decision December 13, 2005 Page 2 of 7 SUMMARY OF HEARING OFFICER DECISION: Approval ZONING DISTRICT: LMN — Low Density Mixed Use Neighborhood. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: 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. The Hearing Officer, presiding pursuant to the Fort Collins Land Use Code, opened the hearing at approximately 5:30 p.m. on December 13, 2005 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 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: Tom Peterson, Applicant Wayne Hochstetler Russ Wells Matthew Delich, Consulting Traffic Engineer Nick Haws, Northern Engineering Lori Darling, Lyman Davidson Dooley Architects Barbara Debona, Lyman Davidson Dooley Architects 2 Commui._-y Planning and Environmental 1. vices Current Planning Citv of Fort Collins CITY OF FORT COLLINS ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER TYPE I ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING DATE: December 13, 2005 PROJECT NAME: CASE NUMBER: APPLICANT: OWNER: HEARING OFFICER: PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Raven View Project Development Plan and Modification of Standard #12-05 and 12-05A Tom Peterson, AICP Stanford Real Estate 3555 Stanford Rd. #204 Fort Collins, CO 80525 Betty Patterson 2009 W. Mulberry St. Fort Collins, CO 80521 Val Gray 614 W. Mulberry St. Fort Collins, CO 80521 Cameron Gloss Current Planning Director The Applicant has submitted a Project Development Plan (referred to herein as the "Project" or the "PDP") proposing a 51-unit residential development, including 18 detached single family units and 33 attached single family units. The Applicant is concurrently requesting a modification of standard regarding the pedestrian level of service. The properly is located approximately 400 feet south of W. Mulberry Street and just east of Taft Hill Road. 281 North College Avenue • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6750 • FAX (970) 416-2020