Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHOWES STREET HIDEAWAYS, PHASE II - PDP/FDP - 35-97 - DECISION - FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & DECISIONDated this day of July, 1998, by authority granted by Section 2.1 of the Fort Collins Lang Code. Aenlausing, Hearing O cer concerns voiced regarding lighting and safety are issues which pertain to a much broader area than this lot and if such issues exist they should be addressed on a neighborhood basis. The Hearing Officer suggest s the applicant and the public who testified discuss their concerns with the appropriate city officials. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION After reviewing the staff report and recommendation, the applicant's submittal, hearing the testimony and considering the record the Hearing Officer makes the following findings and conclusions: 1. The applicant has submitted a Project Development Plan which complies with the requirements of Article 2, Administration of the Land Use Code. 2. The property is located in the C-C Community Commercial zone and the proposed use is permitted within this zoning district. 3. The application meets all the relevant standards of Article 3 General Development Standards including Section 3.4.7 pertaining to designated Local Landmarks. 4. The application satisfies the intent and standards of the Block Standards Section 4.14(E)(2)(a) of the land Use Code. 5. Concerns regarding the adequate provision for the collection of and storage of trash will be satisfied by conditioning approval upon the provision of a trash enclosure screened in compliance with the City codes. 6. The project devleopment plan complies with the requirements of neighborhood compatibility. DECISION Based upon the findings and conclusions, the applicant's request for Preliminary Development Plan Approval for the Howes Street Hideaways Phase II Project Development Plan #35-97 is approved with the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall comply with all notes and conditions set forth on the applicant's submittal sheets 1 of Idated 12-15-97 and revised 5-8-98. and the elevation sheet dated 12-15-97 and revised 5-8-98. 2. This approval is conditioned upon compliance with the condition pertaining to trash collection as set forth above. 6 The Project Development Plan must meet all applicable standards in Article 3, General Development Standards, of the Land Use Code. The applicant presented evidence of compliance with the standards. The following standards were reviewed in detail and at the hearing. The planner testified that the Project Development Plan meets all of the applicable standards of Article 3, General Development Standards. The planner and applicant testified that the project would provide 4 parking spaces in addition to the 2 spaces provided for the existing structure. Per the Land Use Code 2 spaces per dwelling unit are required, therefore the proposal complies with this standard. As stated above the pre-existing structure is a designated Local Landmark. Therefore, development on this site must comply with Section 3.4.7 of the Land Use Code which sets worth standards for the rehabilitation or construction of new structures on this site. Testimony was presented that the Design Review Subcommittee of the Landmark Preservation Commission (LPC) met with the applicant and owner and reviewed the proposal. Testimony was presented that the LPC made numerous suggestions for alteration to the design of the new building and that these suggestions were incorporated into the design of the building. Testimony was presented that various design elements such as the use of similar brick, window styles, the color scheme, entry gables and detail and the lap siding, somply with the standards set forth in the Land Use Code. The Hearing Officer finds that the various design elements included in the desogn are compatible with the existing structures but are not an imitation of the historic styles and that they comply with the intent of the Code. A neighborhood meeting was not required and one was not held. However, testimony at the public hearing included concerns regarding traffic in the alley, safety concerns, provisions for trash collection and the adequacy of parking. The parking has previously been addressed, however, it should be added that this project is designated as a two family dwelling consisting of 4 bedrooms each. These representations by the applicant are set forth on the Development Plan and are conditions of approval. In regard to the trash the applicant has offered to provide a trash enclosure, screened from the street, to be located on an adjacent lot owned by the property owner or the lot in question. This offer is accepted by the City and hereby made a condition of approval. The Hearing Officer takes note of the testimony of increasing traffic in the alley to the east of this property but finds that he has no jurisdiction to require the applicant to remedy this condition. Likewise the 5 The block standards require the following: Mixed -use blocks: 25-65% of the Development Plan Office blocks: 10-30% of the Development Plan Residential blocks: 15-65% of the Development Plan Civic blocks: Minimum of 10% of the Development Plan The planner and applicant testified to the following block breakdown: Mixed Use blocks: (including commercial and retail buildings): 16.25% Office blocks: 7.5% Residential blocks: 76.25% Civic blocks: 0%. The applicant did not include several civic uses within the immediate area. The planner testified that these uses should have been included. A mere comparison of the block requirements and the existing block breakdown it would suggest that the development does not meet the block standards. However, severl factors must be considered in the application of the block standards. The project is approximately 1/5 of an acre and the strict application of the block standards in an in -fill site does not appear warranted by the code. The planner testified that the block standards are appropriately applied to larger sites in "green field" areas. The planner testified that "green field" areas are sites that have little or no development on them and often include a zoning change from, for example, agricultural to residential or commercial. The Hearing Officer does not find an intent in the Development Code nor the Comprehensive Plan to utilize the block standards to preclude a specific development from an area where such a use would otherwise be permitted within the zoning district merely on the basis of the application of the block standards. The Hearing Officer finds it persuasive that the Code specifically states that for developments less than 10 acres the development does not have to provide a mix of block types but must demonstrate how it contributes to the overall mix of blocks within the area. The Code does not prohibit the approval of a development plan merely because the approval would contribute to a pre-existing imbalance in the block mixes. Several other factors mitigate in favor of this conclusion. First, the development plan does not cover an entire lot, to require another type of use such as commercial or office when a residential use already exists on the lot would compel a potential land use conflict for which the Hearing Officer can find no support in the Code. Secondly, the pre- existing use on the lot is a designated local landmark. Designation by the City evidences an intent to preserve the character and integrity of the neighborhood. While it should be possible to develop property as retail or office sues in the proximity of a local landmark residence the Hearing Officer perceives no mandate to compel such a result particularly when the development would have to be on the same lot. 4 The applicant's submittal materials, the staff report, the interdepartmental referral sheet, and all correspondence between the City and the applicant are a part of the record and are incorporated herein by reference. The Hearing Officer takes official notice of the drawings and visual aids used during the hearing. N: CC- Existing single family home; various businesses along Mulberry S: CC -Existing single family homes with duplex units on the alley frontage (student housing). W: CC -Existing single family development (student housing); E Existing single family homes (student housing). The proposed project is located in the C-C Community Commercial zone district. Findings The city planner testified that the proposed use is permitted within the district, that the review of project development plans are appropriate as Type l Administrative reviews. The planner testified that the plan complies with the applicable Community Commercial zone district standards for land use. The Fort Collins Land Use Code provides that the C- C district: " provides a combination of retail, offices, services, cultural facilities, civic uses and higher density housing. Multi -story buildings are encouraged to provide a mix of residential and non-residential uses. Offices and dwellings are encouraged to locate above ground floor retail and services." The Hearing Officer finds that the development plan is conssitent with teh permitted uses within the C-C zoning district. The planner testified that the project complies with the block standards found in Section 4.14(E)(2)(a) of the Land Use Code which provides that "If the development is smaller than ten(10) acres, the development plan must demonstrate how it contributes to the overall mix of block types within the surrounding area, but shall not be required to provide a mix of block types within the development". SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION AND DECISION: • = usioI 111.1a RECREM.11 I:•' •�� I Approval Approval with conditions C-C, Community Commercial The city planner testified that the property was posted, legal notice published and written notices mailed as required by the code. Comments from the ;public were received by the staff and responded to by staff. A neighborhood meeting was not required. PUBLIC HEARING The Hearing Officer, by appointment of the Director pursuant to The Fort Collins Land Use Code, opened the hearing on July 28, 1998 at approximately 6:00 p.m. in the conference room located at 281 N. College Ave. Fort Collins CO. The staff report and recommendation and the applicant's submittals were entered into the record. HEARING TESTIMONY, WRITTEN COMMENTS AND OTHER EVIDENCE The following individuals testified at the hearing: From the City: Leanne Harter, Project Planner Fort Collins, CO For the Applicant: Tom Dugan Pinecrest Planning and Design, LLC 4225 Westshore Way Fort Collins, CO 80525 The following members of the public testified: Bruce Froseth 524 Spring Canyon Ct. Fort Collins, CO 80525 Eileen Larson 1305 Teakwood Fort Collins, CO 80525 K ITEM NO. MEETING D;., ia STAFF lAe er e Citv of Fort Collins HEARING OFFICER STAFF REPORT Steven Klausing, Hearing Officer Hearing Officer, Administrative Type 1 Howes Street Hideaways Phase II Project Development Plan #35-97 OWNER: Chris Ray Vantage Properties LLC 3600 South College Ave., Suite 204 Fort Collins, CO 80525 APPLICANT Tom Dugan Pinecrest Planning and Design, LLC 4225 Westshore Way Fort Collins, CO 80525 This is a request for approval of a Project Development Plan to construct a two story, two family dwelling of approximately 3,800 square feet on a lot of approximately 8,640 square feet. This lot is presently occupied by an existing home, whcih has been designated as a local landmark on the west portion of the lot, and will remain. The proposed structure would be to the east of existing structure. COMMUNITY PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 281 N. College Ave. P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO80522-0580 (970) 221-6750 PLANNING DEPARTMENT