Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutUNION PLACE - PDP - 15-09 - DECISION - FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & DECISIONFORT COLLINS ONL-Y 51' ROW (MIN.) 4.5' WALK (MIN) 30' ROADWAY 6' 6' PIfYJY PKVA (MIN.) (MIN-) La UTIL. ESMT. 16' %* LvL upJwi�0' �zlv-�y& ROADWAY WIDTH: 30' wide. RIGHT OF WAY WIDTH: 51' (min) TRAVEL LANES: 16wide. LEFT TURN LANES: None. 7' 7' INTERSECTIONS (WHERE NEEDED) 4 5' WALK (MIN) 6'.5 Min. Fence Setback g UTIL. ESMT. BIKE LANES: Bicyclists to share travel lane with motor vehicles. Additional street width, up to 4' wider, may be required in the travel lane to accommodate bike traffic to serve activity areas, such as schools and parks. PARKING: Two lanes T wide. SIDEWALK: 4.5' (min.) width. Additional width may be required for higher pedestrian traffic serving activity areas. MEDIANS: None. WHERE USED: All residential local streets where traffic volume is anticipated to be 1000 vpd or less. (unless the Narrow Residential Local Street or Rural Residential Local Street standards are used) DESIGN SPEED: 25 MPH SPEED LIMIT: 25 MPH ACCESS: Access will be unlimited in accordance with these standards. CONTINUITY: The street shall be continuous for no more than 1320 feet. FENCES: Fences shall be setback a minimum of 6.5' from the parkway edge of the sidewalk. CURB AND GUTTER: Vertical curb and gutter, or driveover. However, if driveover is used, the parkways must be widened by V and thereby, the required right of way width will increase by 2' to provide 53'. RESIDENTIAL LOCAL STREET LARIMER COUNTY DESIGN REVISION NO: FIGURE URBAN AREA FIGURE STREET STANDARDS DATE: 09/11/00 7-9F Administrative Public Hearinq Sign -In Project: VNI I t A T r ✓�� Meeting Location: Date: 10 PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY Name Address Phone Email %%% vI&v ol/*) 91 ItrL d.sN. p/lC v */ d q1a - Le2 ei;, •_ AUd.O.— '31.1 .. owl Cv, V-7 ^ L*H I eve. Co 1- 1Z �aG o-,R iL, eu tfzz 6t% L Cd11s 3 - 33.i5- FIUY 12 L14rwk M 32sr 39 :77o Zby LYld s► s�f a�/a:-vi T 'S 2i- S I. 7 or4 �otZp�'c CA Ansnd Z (PM' e� �,�C A"W -C' ^�O �J -16� vb%v-T- .A 5 N 130 L E4W. W11.4a$.- $ A.V k1P I' h !e /"4 Union Place PDP - #14-09 Administrative Hearing Findings, Conclusions, and Decision July 8, 2009 Page 6 of 6 With respect to the Alternative Compliance to Section 3.2. 1 (E)(2)(d) — Foundation Plantings: 1. The Hearing Officer finds that the additional ornamental trees and decorative grasses meet the intent of the aforementioned Section equal to or better than the standard. With respect to the Alternative Compliance to Section 3.6.2(E) — lots having a front or rear lot line abutting an arterial street requiring a minimum 150 foot lot depth: 1. The Hearing Officer finds that this request is related to the setback standard modification and that the enhanced landscaping and wider sidewalk will meet the intent of the standard equal to or better than compliance with the 150 foot lot depth metric. DECISION The Union Place Project Development Plan #15-09, is hereby approved by the Hearing Officer subject to the following conditions: 1. Update plans to eliminate all 4.0 foot wide sidewalks and replace them with 4.5 foot wide sidewalks. 2. Obtain approval from the Greeley Waterline Enhancement Transmission (GWET) to correct the alignment of an easement through the project site. 3. The project architecture and design guidelines outlined in the staff report are herby incorporated into this approval. Dated this 15a' day of July, 2009, per authority granted by Sect�ons 1.4.9(E) and 2.1 of the Land Use Code. , / 'I Steven J. Dush Director of Current Planning Union Place PDP - #14-09 Administrative Hearing Findings, Conclusions, and Decision July 8, 2009 Page 5 of 6 The Hearing Officer appreciates the efforts that the developer has undertaken to create a mixed use development that offers a high level of sustainable design yet finds that the recommendation from staff and the testimony from staff support the condition to require a 4.5 foot wide sidewalk. SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS A. The Union Place Project Development Plan is subject to administrative review and the requirements of the Land Use Code (LUC). B. The Union Place Project Development Plan complies with all applicable district standards of Section 4 of the Land Use Code. C. The Union Place Project Development Plan complies with all applicable General Development Standards contained in Article 3 of the Land Use Code except Section 3.2.2(L) — Parking Stall Dimensions and Section 3.5.2(D)(1) — Residential Building Standards where modifications have been requested; And; Alternative Compliance relative to Section 3.2.1(E)(2)(d) — Foundation Plantings and Section 3.6.2(E). D. With respect to the Modification to Section 3.2.2 (L ) — Parking Stall Dimensions: 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, in accordance with Section 2.8.2(H)(4), the Hearing Officer finds that the reduction is nominal and inconsequential as the stall width matches a recognized LCUASS standard. With respect to the Modification to Section 3.5.2(D)(1) — Residential Building Standards: 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, in accordance with Section 2.8.2(H)(3), the Hearing Officer finds that the modification is warranted due to the location of existing improvements would create an undue hardship upon the applicant to develop the property. And; Union Place PDP - #14-09 Administrative Hearing Findings, Conclusions, and Decision July 8, 2009 Page 4 of 6 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. Testimony was offered at the hearing by neighboring landowners concerning the anticipated traffic impacts. Specifically the ingress into the site; the increased traffic volumes; and how the traffic would be mitigated. One of the residents also indicated the need for a traffic signal at the main entrance into the proposed development (Center Street/West Willox Lane Intersection). The City's Traffic Engineer provided an explanation that the improvements that would occur at Willox (north property line) and Mason (East Property Line), would accommodate the traffic generated from the proposed development. Furthermore, the improvements along West Willox, which include a center turn lane would provide for traffic to meet the City's established Level of Service Standard without the need for signalization at the intersection of Center Street and West Willox Lane. The Hearing Officer acknowledges and appreciates that neighboring property owners have provided careful thought in the framing of their concerns about traffic impacts and the evidence presented by the City staff along with the required improvements, supports a finding of compliance with the applicable standards. The applicant had agreed with all of staff recommendations and findings relative to the submittal except the condition requiring a 4.5 foot wide sidewalk. The development proposes private streets to accommodate a number of innovative and sustainable design components and in doing so proposes a 4.0 foot wide sidewalk. The applicant offered a number of design considerations to advocate a 4.0 foot sidewalk. These considerations included the ability to reduce the stormwater retention by having less impervious surface area, the ability to increase the front yards of the uses adjacent to the sidewalk by 6 inches, the reduction in a "heat sink" effect by reducing the amount of pavement associated with a 6 inch reduction of sidewalk length. The hearing officer asked staff what the requirement was and staff indicated that since the streets were private that a sidewalk width requirement is not established but stated that the minimum width of a sidewalk for public streets is 4.5 feet wide. The hearing officer asked staff why 4.5 feet wide instead of 4.0 feet and Staff indicated that it is difficult for two people to walk abreast comfortably on a 4.0 wide sidewalk. The applicant offered testimony that he lives on a 4.0 foot wide sidewalk and that it was comfortable to him and that some communities have a 4.0 foot wide standard. The City Traffic Engineer indicated that while some communities have a 4.0 foot wide requirement, that the City standard of 4.5 feet is the standard that is considered a minimum width to accommodate comfortably two people walking abreast and also offered that communities using the 4.0 feet wide sidewalks are returning to 4.5 feet as 4.0 foot wide sidewalks do not offer the level of service and comfort that a 4.5 foot sidewalk provides. Union Place PDP - #14-09 Administrative Hearing Findings, Conclusions, and Decision July 8, 2009 Page 3 of 6 Del Shipley; 218 W. Willox Lane Eleanor Shipley; 218 W. Willox Lane Written Comments: None FACTS AND FINDINGS 1. Background The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows: N: LMN, Low -Density Mixed Use Neighborhood; Existing single family detached dwelling units S: CS, Service Commercial; Existing unplatted trailer park E: CS; Existing McDonalds Restaurant, Convenient Store and Fuel Facility W: O, Open County Zoning; Existing County Subdivision, Single-family and multi -family dwelling units The property was annexed into the City of Fort Collins in the North College Annexation in December 1959. It has remained unplatted since that time. The site is currently unimproved and used as an agricultural field. 2. Compliance with Article 4 and Division 4.22 C-S, Service Commercial District: The Project Development Plan complies with all applicable requirements of Article 4 and Division 4.22 C-S Service Commercial zone district. The Staff Report summarizes the PDP's compliance with these standards. In particular, the proposed mixed use dwelling units are permitted within the zone district and there is no prescribed minimum or maximum density. The Project is also in conformance with land use standards relating to building height, calling for buildings to be 2-3 stories. 3. Compliance with Article 3 of the Land Use Code — General Development Standards The Staff Report summarizes the PDP's compliance with the applicable site planning and design, access, circulation, parking, engineering, building design, and transportation standards, including those standards specific to mixed -use buildings. There was no Union Place PDP - #14-09 Administrative Hearing Findings, Conclusions, and Decision July 8, 2009 Page 2 of 6 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval with Conditions 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 July 8, 2009 in the City Council Chambers Conference Room at 300 Laporte 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) an audio 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: Emma McArdle, City Planner Andrew Carney, Development Review Engineer Joe Olson, City Traffic Engineer From the Applicant: Doug Hay; 1912 Welch Street Brad Duckham, 55 S 32"d Street, Boulder, CO 80305 Donna Merten 55 S 32nd Street, Boulder, CO 80305 Robert Ross; 2605 Mapleton, Boulder, CO 80304 From the Public: Ann Anderson; 321 Snowy Owl Circle Manual Rodriquez, 2025 College Avenue #190 Duane Leach; 2096 N Whitcomb Robert Prussman; 6026 Huntington Hills Drive CITY OF FORT COLLINS ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER TYPE I ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING DATE: PROJECT NAME: CASE NUMBER: APPLICANT: OWNERS: HEARING OFFICER: PROJECT DESCRIPTION: July 8, 2009 Union Place Project Development Plan #15-09 Donna Merten Merten Construction 55 S 32' Street Boulder, CO 80305 Same as Applicant Steven J. Dush Director of Current Planning The Applicant has submitted a Project Development Plan (referred to herein as the "Project" or the "PDP") for a mixed -use project. The proposed development is located on 10.91 acres and proposes 8 single-family homes, 30 triplex units, 37 condominiums and 14 mixed -use units. The maximum building height will be 40', with all buildings being either 2-3 stories. All single- family homes, condominiums and mixed use units are expected to have 3 bedrooms and triplexes will have two -two bedroom units and one -one bedroom unit each; maximum bedrooms for the development being 218. The development is required to have 168 parking stalls for the residences, 130 are off-street parking spaces and 38 are on -street parking. Fifty-two units (58%) are planned to become permanently affordable. SUMMARY OF HEARING OFFICER DECISION: Conditional Approval ZONING DISTRICT: Service Commercial (CS) zone district.